Best cpu am2 socket: The Four Best AM2 CPUs Out There

The Four Best AM2 CPUs Out There

Need a new AM2 processor? Then look no further. We tried and tested some of the best AM2 CPUs on the market and found that the AMD HDZ940XCGIBOX Phenom II X4 940 offers the top-grade performance.

However, while all AM2s will fit into the socket, support from the motherboard depends on the system you have in place, so it gets harder to determine the right AM2 CPU for your processor. There are many things to consider to ensure you have the capabilities compatible with the CPU.

Contents

  • What Is the Best AM2 Processor?
    • 1) Superior Value—AMD HDZ940XCGIBOX Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition
    • Pros
    • Cons
    • 2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.1GHz 2x512KB Socket AM2 Dual-Core CPU
    • Pros
    • Cons
    • 3) Best Processor For Gaming—AMD Athlon II X4 640
    • Pros
    • Cons
    • 4) AMD Athlon II X2 240
    • Pros
    • Cons
  • What to Consider Before Buying the Best AM2 CPU for You?
    • 1) The Market Situation
    • 2) Price
    • 3) Features and Performance
    • 4) Temperature
    • 5) Motherboard Compatibility
    • 6) Clock Speed
  • Final Thoughts

What Is the Best AM2 Processor?

Extensive research has gone into comparing processors and their specifications. We’ve seen people obsess over the minutest details and lose focus on what matters. You simply can’t rush the selection of the right processor for your needs.

We’ve saved you the trouble and tested the best AM2 CPUs users have been raving about, so you can get a quick rundown comparison of the best on the market.

Product Pros
Superior Value—AMD HDZ940XCGIBOX Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition
  • Larger L3 Cache
  • Bus speed of 3.6 gigs
  • Bandwidth of 17.1GB/s
  • CoolCore technology
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.1GHz 2x512KB Socket AM2 Dual-Core CPU
  • One MB L2 cache per core
  • 200MHz speed bump
  • Overclocking is locked in at 3.0GHz
  • Really high memory (and no lagging)
Best Processor For Gaming—AMD Athlon II X4 640
  • Quad-core CPU
  • Multi-threaded performance
  • Multi-screen HD graphics
  • Hardware virtualization
AMD Athlon II X2 240
  • 2. 8 GHz frequency
  • 1.425 V stock voltage
  • Memory to work up to 1600 MHz
  • Consumes less energy

1) Superior Value—AMD HDZ940XCGIBOX Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition

Pros

Cons

AMD COOLCORE technology reduces power consumption Unique compatibility requirements might be hard to match
Quad-core technology offers multitasking capabilities
3-year warranty
Reduces memory delays and increases bandwidth
3.0 technology reduces noise levels
Unlimited overclocking

There are many AM2 processors out there, but few compare to the superb functionality of the AMD HDZ940XCGIBOX Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition. It offers a larger L3 Cache to manage heavy processing loads (larger than most CPUs) and has a bus speed of 3. 6 gigs and a bandwidth of 17.1GB/s, which is pretty good.

What makes this processor a popular option is AMD’s unique CoolCore technology, which lets you shut down idle components so they can cool off. This means you can expect little to no overheating from this AM2 processor, which I have personally come to expect from AMD processors.

However, I’d recommend that serious gamers get a heavy-duty aftermarket cooler so the Phenom doesn’t lag with extra load. One of the best parts of Phenom II X4 940 is that it comes with a memory controller, so you don’t have to use an external controller in the North Bridge.

It’s also a decent buy if you consider that AMD recently moved to a 45nm process, which works wonders to reduce power consumption and overheating. That’s a sweet deal if you ask me.

Installation is also easy and quick. You can just drop it into an AM2+ motherboard (MOBO), and a BIOS update will help you get it to work. With up to 6MB of memory (shared by all four cores), I think the Phenom II X4 940 is a great option to consider.

  • Overall:

This is a good AM2 CPU, especially if you plan to use it in the home and even at work. The graphics on this processor are a sight for sore eyes

2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.1GHz 2x512KB Socket AM2 Dual-Core CPU

Pros

Cons

Amazing graphics Minimal headroom
Fast Hard to integrate with BIOS updates
Great value for the price
Easy to upgrade to existing motherboards

It’s pretty common for AM2 processors to have similar features. However, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000 is one of the best AM2 CPUs out there, and we stand by it. The overclocking is locked in at 3.0GHz and it offers multiplier functionality, so brownie points for that.

Does that make it the perfect AM2 for your system? The short answer is no. Unlike some other CPUs on the market, this AM2 socket only allows one MB L2 cache per core and a 200MHz speed bump. However, it’s incredibly efficient and is easy to upgrade to your current motherboards, which is pretty good because it doesn’t require a BIOS upgrade.

If you have cooling fans, then you should get this AM2 CPU, because the high overclocking speed makes it overheat easily. If you can upgrade to a new motherboard, then frequent upgrades aren’t going to be a problem for you. If not, I’d suggest you choose some of the other options on this list.

What makes it a formidable choice is that this AM2 processor has really high memory (and literally no lagging) because it has a very strong memory controller.
I was pleased to find that this CPU performs really well, even though it’s a pretty old model.

  • Overall:

This is a good option because it improves your system performance and ensures smooth operation. However, if your MOBO has lots of BIOS updates, I’d recommend you continue looking around.

3) Best Processor For Gaming—AMD Athlon II X4 640

Pros

Cons

Speed enhancing capabilities Some buyers complain about poor packaging
Virtualization support Not L3 cache
DDR3 support

Whether you’re a die-hard fan of League of Legends or really good at Overwatch, the AMD Athlon II X4 640 is an excellent choice as it’s the best processor for gaming. It is a quad-core CPU, which makes it perfect for multi-threaded performance because your games don’t lag.

Is it the best on the market? That’s still up for debate. However, it offers great performance at a low price, and that’s all I ever look for in an AM2 processor. The stock heat sink also helps to cool the processor down and it makes no noise at all!

Interestingly, we found that a lot of gamers like this processor because it allows you to view multi-screen HD graphics (when you add a graphics card), and some even find it works really well for audio editing. I compliment this CPU’s compact design, which has just enough space for a fan.

The answer is yes, it does allow hardware virtualization, which means a great deal when you want to boost the performance of your virtual machines.

While it’s really good for performance, this processor doesn’t have any new features that are different from others on the market. This is to be expected, however, because of how cheap it is.

  • Overall:

It’s one of the best AM2 CPUs on this list. If you want to multitask or need to download large files on-the-go, definitely check it out.

4) AMD Athlon II X2 240

Pros

Cons

Low heat output The memory controller is a downgrade compared to other processors
Stellar stock overclocking
Great value for money

Even though it’s an older model, the AMD Athlon II X2 240 is a favorite for users who are working within a budget and still want stock overclocking.

It works at 2.8 GHz frequency and a 1.425 V stock voltage, which means it has very reliable performance and consumes less energy. It also boasts strong technology support which any user would want from a processor.

I definitely love the new features in this AMD processor because I only see options like NX bit, 3DNow!, and Cool’n’Quiet in more expensive models.

While the memory controller is a downgrade, it’s pretty easy to navigate if you manually configure the memory to work up to 1600 MHz. Need an update? No worries! You can use the processor on older platforms and still use the MOBO you have right now.

  • Overall:

Since it’s the cheapest option on the list, I don’t mind that it packs in less speed and functionality than other CPUs. I’d work my way up to trying a few other options, but if you’re not the type to wait, it’s a good CPU for the price.

What to Consider Before Buying the Best AM2 CPU for You?

With so many products to choose from, it’s no wonder people get lost in research when they’re trying to buy a CPU. Many factors go into finding the right AM2 CPU for your system, so you must view every option on the market before you make a choice. No matter what, you should consider the following:

1) The Market Situation

Buying a processor means picking a CPU that offers the best performance or one that provides the best value for its price. If the market is preparing for a processor claiming to be the fastest, you can easily chip in for slightly older processors at a fraction of their former price.

Ultimately, this is a matter of personal preferences and budget limitations. If you can afford a newer model, go for it—which brings us to our next point.

2) Price

Generally, working on a budget is only a matter of finding the right processor. Older versions can (and often do) offer the same value for a lower cost, so you don’t always have to go with the latest and greatest product to get the best AM2 CPU.

3) Features and Performance

While some AM2 processors have stark differences, most offer similar features with minor variations. This is why you should know what you’re looking for before you set out to buy one.

For example, maybe you need to secure higher performance power. Here, an AM2 processor which has a lot of new features but does focus a lot on performance should be your first choice.

4) Temperature

If you have a small build system, installing a big processor is a poor decision, because they overheat easily and also heat the components around them. This means you will need additional cooling to keep temperatures in check.

You can do this by checking the Thermal Design Power (TDP) wattage of your CPU and match this to the TDP of your cooler. Additionally, intake fans will protect system components against dust and exhaust heat.

5) Motherboard Compatibility

Like I mentioned earlier, not all AM2 sockets are compatible with all motherboards. You need to consider this so that you know the processor you buy is compatible with the AM2+ socket. A little research here will save you much time in getting the best AM2 CPU.

6) Clock Speed

Clock speed is the rate at which your microprocessor executes the CPU’s instructions. In this case, a high clock speed equals speed, and vice versa. You need to factor this into your purchase before you single out an AM2 for your system.

For gamers, a clock speed of 4.0 GHz should offer you enough functionality for heavy-duty gaming.

Final Thoughts

All in all, the right AM2 processor can do wonders to boost the speed and efficiency of your system. The processor you invest in will differ depending on your use for it.

If you’re a gamer, a quad-core CPU is your best choice. Do you need something to speed up the system at home? An older dual-core model is the way to go! Ultimately, you’ll want to find the best CPU that fits into your budget and keeps the system components performing their best.

I hope this AM2 processors list helps you make better choices in buying the best AM2 CPU.

Liked this article? Here are a few more you might like:
• Best Gaming Mouse For Small Hands—Our Top Choices
• How To Clean A Motherboard—Best Ways
• The Best GPU For I5 8400—Find the Right Graphic Card

Best AM2+ CPU – 5 Fastest AM2+ Processors – Internet Geeks

Gaming Geeks

  • Posted by

    Azad Shaikh

23

Feb

 

Our computer systems are machines (no matter how attached we may be to them). And, just like any other machine, they need to be upgraded from time to time. This routine will ensure that you have the latest parts and are not trying to make a 19th century part work in 2021. Of course, it may still work but it will be slow and the performance will not be great.

 If you are noticing an overall drop in the performance of your system, it is likely because you have an outdated microprocessor. This delayed performance can hamper productivity and sour your gaming experience. So, why continue with it? We suggest that you upgrade to one of the latest options along with a good socket. Our vote goes to the AM2+ socket. 

What is an AM2+ CPU?

The AM2+ is a socket that is used by multiple AMD processors. It works to provide a secure connection between a microprocessor and the circuit board. Today, you will also see AM3 sockets, which are an upgrade of AM2+ but AM2+ is good enough too. It is a successor of the AM2 sockets and you will see a few distinct characteristics. 

The Benefits of an AM2+ CPU

Here’s why you should buy this particular processor:

  • They are known to be highly efficient. They improve speed, lowers latency, and optimizes power consumption.
  • They work on advanced technology to stay cool even while using intensive applications.
  • They are durable and reliable, well-known to last for a long time.

AM2+ CPU – Buying Guide

There are certain things you should keep in mind while buying an AM2+ CPU because it can get technical and difficult. It is very easy to feel lost during the buying process, which is why we are here to help. Below are the features you must look for in your AM2+ CPU:

  • Compatibility: You must remember that AM2+ CPUs are specific in function. This means that you can’t just use any CPU for any system. You must ensure that your processor is compatible with the AM2+ socket and then go ahead. 
  • Clock speed: For gamers, we suggest 3.5 GHz. You can also go for 4.0 GHz if you are a pro. Otherwise, anything lower will do too. High clock speed makes performance fast and seamless. That’s very important for gamers. 
  • Warranty: Who doesn’t like a long-lasting, durable product? Without a warranty, you will be shooting in the dark, almost risking it. With a warranty, you can be sure that if any problem arises, you can have it repaired or exchanged. 
  • Pricing: Needless to say, price is a very crucial factor. Make sure you set a reasonable budget for yourself before making any decisions. 

Contents

Best AM2+ CPU

Now, let’s go ahead and look at some of the best options of AM2+ available on the market today.

1. AMD Phenom X4 9500

The AMD Phenom X4 9500 is a quad-core CPU and a speed of 2.2 GHz. It has the AM2 socket but of course, it is compatible with AM2+. Its general features are as follows:

  1. It has a 2 MB cache.
  2. The socket works on the 65nm process technology.
  3. This is an AMD64 socket with a direct connect architecture.
  4. Its 4 cores ensure that you work on processor-intensive tasks with ease and without any lag whatsoever.
  5. You can use this CPU for various applications from gaming to running intense applications and creating graphics

Pros

  • Ready to install

  • A very easy upgrade


2. AMD Phenom II X4 940 – Black Edition

If you are looking for speed and want a solid upgrade, you will definitely love the AMD Phenom II X4 940. It has an innovative design but it is not complicated at all. You will, in fact, have fun working with it. Some of its specifications are:

  1. It works on 3.0 GHz frequency.
  2. It has a larger cache size than standard AM2+ CPUs at 6 MB.
  3. This is a quad-core CPU.
  4. It works on both, 32- and 64-bit operating modes, without any problems.
  5. Its CoolCore Technology ensures that you save energy by optimizing usage.
  6. It has DDR2 memory. 
  7. You get a limited 3-year warranty with this processor.

Pros

  • Excellent quality

  • Reduces latencies 

  • Smooth performance


3. AMD Phenom X4 9650

This processor has a 2MB cache and a speed of 2.3 GHz. Let’s take a closer look at why you should buy the AMD Phenom X4 9650:

  1. It is a quad-core processor with 16-bit HyperTransport link.
  2. It also comes with an 11.5 clock multiplier.
  3. This processor is best suited for productivity, modeling, graphic design, gaming, multitasking, and digital media.
  4. It comes with a warranty of 3 months.
  5. It works on 95 watts.

4. AMD Phenom II X4 920

The AMD Phenom II X4 920 is another excellent choice with 6 MB L3 cache and a good speed of 2.8 GHz. Below are a few more features:

  1. The processor comes with a native quad-core die design.
  2. You can use it with the HyperTransport 3 Technology.
  3. Its 6 MB cache is shared by the 4 cores along with 512 KB for each core.
  4. It has an integrated DDR2 SDRAM memory.
  5. It supports the AMD64 technology and the CoolnQuiet Technology to enable excellent performance.
  6. You will be able to use this CPU for 64-bit computing.

5. AMD Athlon II X4 640

Let’s end with the very popular processor, which everyone has their eye on – the AMD Athlon II X4 640. It is suitable for gamers with 3.0 GHz speed and the following features:

  1. This quad-core processor has an AM2+ and AM3+ socket.
  2. It has 4 threads and an L2 cache of 2 MB.
  3. It works on a power of 95 watts.
  4. Its clock multiplier rate is 15.
  5. It has 938 pins.
  6. The CPU comes with a warranty of 3 months.
  7. The package includes a thermal compound to help you with installation. However, you have to buy the fan and heat grease separately.

People Also Ask (FAQs)

Here are a few FAQs that will help you understand AM2+ CPUs better.

What is the Fastest AM2+ Processor?

The Phenom II X4 series is currently the fastest.

Can I Put an AM3 CPU in an AM2+ Processor?

Yes, you can, because AM3 CPUs are backwards compatible.

Is AM2 and AM2+ the Same?

Physically, you won’t see a difference but AM2+ sockets are an upgrade. They have HyperTransport 3.0 support and split power planes. 

Will AM4 Fit in AM3+?

No, it cannot. Only AM3 can fit AM3+.

Are CPU Sockets Backwards Compatible?

Most of them are backwards compatible.

How Do I Find Out My Processor Socket Type?

That’s quite easy! You will find it on the motherboard.

Conclusion

Now that you have a clear idea about AM2+ CPUs, we are sure you will be able to purchase the best according to your needs. If you have any other doubts, though, you can always reach out to us. 

Review of Best Am2+ CPUs in 2022

The process of upgrading your system regularly adds huge value. This is evident when you are planning to build your CPU or upgrade your older one. A faulty microprocessor might be the reason you’ve experienced a slow performance on your computer and, therefore, it’s logical to change to a more efficient alternative. To do this, you’ll require a CPU socket and if you’re updating the socket, then an AM2+ is an excellent choice.

But, it’s difficult to find one because it requires a lot of study and understanding. Don’t worry! We’ve got the complete guide to help you purchase the top AM2and CPUs. This includes fantastic product recommendations as well as everything that you require to know about how to install them and how to buy the AM2+ CPUs. The latest generation of AM2 + CPU is AM3+ CPU and this is more compatible with your latest need. If you want to know more about this then visit the review of Best AM3+ CPU.

What exactly is an AM2+ processor and what is it used for?

If you’re lacking information about computers, likely, you don’t know what the AM2+ CPU does or the purpose for which it is used. It’s the AM2+ is a CPU socket. This slot offers connections, both electrical and mechanical between the printed circuit board and a microprocessor. The AM2+ socket can achieve similar effects. It’s the predecessor to the more modern AM3 sockets and has similar, but distinct features from AM2. AM2. Additionally, AM2 and AM2+ sockets can work together but this is contingent on other elements. One of these is the compatibility of Bios software.

Are all CPUs the same?

Although they may be alike not all CPUs are the same. They all have significant and minor differences and that’s the reason it is impossible to pick any processor to fit into the latest model. One of the main factors that differentiate them is the motherboard used since each processor operates in the same slot. This is the reason why, when you choose to upgrade your processor, you must verify the compatibility of your motherboard.

The majority of computers run AMD as well as Intel processors. Both processors have different technical specifications, come from different brands and utilize different sockets. AMD processors are thought to be superior choices if you have to complete a range of tasks simultaneously but they’re not interchangeable, either.

AM2 was launched in the year 2006 as an excellent budget-friendly alternative to desktop CPUs. Its successor AM2+ had the same design and utilized similar CPU cooling systems however, it has an improved Hyper transport 3.0 and two power planes, which gives the AM3 a distinct advantage. Additionally, it comes with a DDR3 SDRAM. AM3 has a DDR3 SDRAM that is the most significant feature that separates it in comparison to its previous. In terms of our list of recommended products, all of the ones on our list include AM2+ sockets.

Who will benefit from this most?

All in all, this unit is a fantastic purchase for those who want high-quality displays and low delay in gaming. If you’re looking to accomplish many tasks at the same time or frequently download large files, this device can handle everything and perform better each time.

What is the latest report from buyers?

The product has rapidly become a popular item for buyers. It comes with a variety of features that guarantee high-end performance, and it remains calm and comfortable. It is also extremely fast and efficient. It helps reduce crucial energy consumption. These aspects make this product a worthwhile investment.

Review of the Top AM2+ CPUs

There’s a wide variety of items available. Although it provides only one option it could make buying quite confusing. It can be difficult to choose a single item in particular, given that certain products can appear to be fraudulent. However, we’ve got some amazing products that are reliable and worth investing in. Let’s have a look:

What makes it stand out to Us

It is a good choice for us from a variety of angles. It has features such as COOL CORE technology which helps reduce power consumption by shutting down parts within the processing unit that aren’t currently in use. Additionally, it has quad-core technology, which lets it operate 32 and 64-bit processing simultaneously with no hiccups. It’s also not noisy due to the innovative ‘N’ quiet technology.

Bottom Line

The product is unique. It has a lot of options that make it to be an outstanding product. It is extremely robust and reliable. Additionally, it is extremely functional and allows users to easily multi-task. Furthermore, the design considers the heat and noise and reduces their impact. There are many types of products available in the market. And It’s hard to find out the best information This is why we shared this website with you so you can easily get all information in one place. Visit this pickcheaplaptops.com site for more information.

The Four Best Socket Am2 Cpu S Of 2022, Whats The Best Am2 Cpu

Need a new AM2 processor? Then look no further. We tried and tested some of the best AM2 CPUs on the market and found that the AMD HDZ940XCGIBOX Phenom II X4 940 offers the top-grade performance.

Đang xem: Best socket am2 cpu

However, while all AM2s will fit into the socket, support from the motherboard depends on the system you have in place, so it gets harder to determine the right AM2 CPU for your processor. There are many things to consider to ensure you have the capabilities compatible with the CPU.

Contents

  • 1 What Is the Best AM2 Processor?
  • 2 What to Consider Before Buying the Best AM2 CPU for You?
    • 2.1 1) The Market Situation
    • 2.2 2) Price
    • 2.3 3) Features and Performance
    • 2.4 4) Temperature
    • 2.5 5) Motherboard Compatibility
    • 2.6 6) Clock Speed
  • 3 Final Thoughts

What Is the Best AM2 Processor?

What to Consider Before Buying the Best AM2 CPU for You?

With so many products to choose from, it’s no wonder people get lost in research when they’re trying to buy a CPU. Many factors go into finding the right AM2 CPU for your system, so you must view every option on the market before you make a choice. No matter what, you should consider the following:

1) The Market Situation

Buying a processor means picking a CPU that offers the best performance or one that provides the best value for its price. If the market is preparing for a processor claiming to be the fastest, you can easily chip in for slightly older processors at a fraction of their former price.

Ultimately, this is a matter of personal preferences and budget limitations. If you can afford a newer model, go for it—which brings us to our next point.

2) Price

Generally, working on a budget is only a matter of finding the right processor. Older versions can (and often do) offer the same value for a lower cost, so you don’t always have to go with the latest and greatest product to get the best AM2 CPU.

3) Features and Performance

While some AM2 processors have stark differences, most offer similar features with minor variations. This is why you should know what you’re looking for before you set out to buy one.

For example, maybe you need to secure higher performance power. Here, an AM2 processor which has a lot of new features but does focus a lot on performance should be your first choice.

4) Temperature

If you have a small build system, installing a big processor is a poor decision, because they overheat easily and also heat the components around them.

Xem thêm: The Best Breakfast Burritos In Dallas (Updated July 2022, Top 10 Best Breakfast Burrito In Dallas, Tx

This means you will need additional cooling to keep temperatures in check.

You can do this by checking the Thermal Design Power (TDP) wattage of your CPU and match this to the TDP of your cooler. Additionally, intake fans will protect system components against dust and exhaust heat.

5) Motherboard Compatibility

Like I mentioned earlier, not all AM2 sockets are compatible with all motherboards. You need to consider this so that you know the processor you buy is compatible with the AM2+ socket. A little research here will save you much time in getting the best AM2 CPU.

6) Clock Speed

Clock speed is the rate at which your microprocessor executes the CPU’s instructions. In this case, a high clock speed equals speed, and vice versa. You need to factor this into your purchase before you single out an AM2 for your system.

For gamers, a clock speed of 4.0 GHz should offer you enough functionality for heavy-duty gaming.

Final Thoughts

All in all, the right AM2 processor can do wonders to boost the speed and efficiency of your system. The processor you invest in will differ depending on your use for it.

If you’re a gamer, a quad-core CPU is your best choice. Do you need something to speed up the system at home? An older dual-core model is the way to go! Ultimately, you’ll want to find the best CPU that fits into your budget and keeps the system components performing their best.

Xem thêm: New 2016 Winnebago Trend Floor Plans, New 2016 Winnebago Trend 23B Motor Home Class C

I hope this AM2 processors list helps you make better choices in buying the best AM2 CPU.

Liked this article? Here are a few more you might like:• Best Gaming Mouse For Small Hands—Our Top Choices• How To Clean A Motherboard—Best Ways• The Best GPU For I5 8400—Find the Right Graphic Card

See more articles in category: Best

Top 10 Best am2 socket cpu Reviews

We may earn a commission if you purchase a product through one of our links

by Douglas Brown

Top 10 Rated am2 socket cpu in 2022 Comparison Table

SaleBestseller No. 1

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-core, 24-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor

  • The world’s best gaming desktop processor, with 12 cores and 24 processing threads
  • Can deliver elite 100-plus FPS performance in the world’s most popular games
  • Cooler not included, high-performance cooler recommended. Max Temperature- 90°C
  • 4.8 GHz Max Boost, unlocked for overclocking, 70 MB of cache, DDR-3200 support
  • For the advanced Socket AM4 platform, can support PCIe 4.0 on X570 and B550 motherboards

SaleBestseller No. 2

Cooler Master MasterLiquid ML240L RGB V2, Close-Loop AIO CPU Liquid Cooler, 240 Radiator, SickleFlow 120mm, RGB Lighting, 3rd Gen Dual Chamber Pump for AMD Ryzen/Intel LGA1700*/1200/115X

  • 3rd Generation Dual Chamber Pump for overall cooling efficiency and performance
  • New SickleFlow Refreshed exterior design for improved lighting and fan blades for a quiet airflow performance
  • RGB Lighting Signature cooling performance with an RGB design for all of the users wanting lighting effects that are fully customizable
  • Industrial Grade Seal High Industrial Grade EPDM material to strengthen the seal for improved longevity and Anti-Leaking
  • AMD AM4/AM3+/AM3/AM2+/AM2/FM2+/FM2/FM1

SaleBestseller No. 3

Cooler Master Hyper 212 Black Edition RGB CPU Air Cooler, SF120R RGB Fan, Anodized Gun-Metal Black, Brushed Nickel Fins, 4 Copper Direct Contact Heat Pipes for AMD Ryzen/Intel LGA1200/1151

  • Direct contact technology: 4 Heat Pipe with exclusive direct contact technology effectively provides excellent heat dissipation; Air flow: 57.3 CFM; Noise level: 26.0 decibels
  • Precise air flow: Stacked fin array ensures least airflow resistance which allows cooler air flow into the heat sink
  • RGB LED controller: The wired RGB LED controller allows for customizable colors and effects with just the touch of a button
  • Smart Fan sensor for jam protection: Never worry about your cables getting snagged or components being mucked up ever again
  • Snap and play: Intuitive fan bracket design makes upgrading and removing the fan a breeze

Bestseller No. 4

Noctua NH-D15 chromax. Black, Dual-Tower CPU Cooler (140mm, Black)

  • Proven premium heatsink (more than 300 awards and recommendations from international hardware websites), now available in an all-black design that goes great with many colour schemes and RGB LEDs
  • Extra-wide 140mm dual-tower design with 6 heatpipes and dual fans provides maximum quiet cooling efficiency on a par with many all-in-one watercoolers, ideal for overclockers and silent-enthusiasts!
  • Dual-fan design with renowned, award-winning NF-A15 140mm fans with Low-Noise Adaptors and PWM for automatic speed control: Full cooling performance under load, whisper quiet at idle!
  • Includes high-end NT-h2 thermal paste and SecuFirm2 mounting system for easy installation on Intel LGA1700 (LGA17xx family) LGA1200, LGA115x, LGA2011, LGA2066 and AMD AM4 & AM5
  • Renowned Noctua quality backed up by 6-year manufacturer’s warranty, deluxe choice for Intel Core i9, i7, i5, i3 (e.g. 12900K, 12700K, 12600K) and AMD Ryzen (e. g. 7950X, 7900X, 7700X, 7600X)

Bestseller No. 5

be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4, BK022, 250W TDP, CPU Cooler

  • Socket compatibility AMD: AM5 / AM4
  • Socket compatibility Intel: 1700 / 1200 / 2066 / 1150 / 1151 / 1155 / 2011(-3) Square ILM
  • Two virtually inaudible silent Wings PWM fans
  • Funnel-shaped frame of the front fan for high air pressure
  • Achieves only 24.3Db(a) at maximum fan speed

SaleBestseller No. 6

AMD Ryzen™ 5 5500 6-Core, 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler

  • Can deliver fast 100 plus FPS performance in the world’s most popular games, discrete graphics card required
  • 6 Cores and 12 processing threads, bundled with the AMD Wraith Stealth cooler
  • 4.2 GHz Max Boost, unlocked for overclocking, 19 MB cache, DDR4-3200 support
  • For the advanced Socket AM4 platform

Bestseller No. 7

Corsair iCUE h250i Elite Capellix Liquid CPU Cooler, RGB Pump + Fans, 360mm

  • A high-performance RGB pump head provides powerful, low-noise cooling for your CPU, lit by 33 ultra-bright CAPELLIX RGB LEDs
  • Includes a Corsair iCUE commander core smart RGB Lighting and Fan speed controller, for precise speed and lighting control over up to six RGB Fans
  • Three 120mm Corsair ML RGB Magnetic Levitation PWM fans deliver powerful airflow for extreme CPU cooling performance, with eight RGB LEDs per fan
  • Accurately control your cooling via PWM, adjusting fan speeds from 400 to 2,400 RPM
  • Zero RPM fan profiles in Corsair iCUE software allow fans to stop entirely at low temperatures, eliminating fan noise

Bestseller No. 8

Vetroo V5 CPU Air Cooler w/ 5 Heat Pipes 120mm PWM Processor 150W TDP Cooler for Intel LGA 1700/1200/115X AMD Ryzen AM4 Universal Socket w/Addressable RGB Lights Sync(V5, Black)

  • Simple Overall Design: With high quality and black frame and transparent acrylic fan blade which can effectively reflect lights and making the lightning brighter and softer. The appearance is a perfect match for gaming computer case and radiator.
  • Five Heatpipes: Five heat pipes with exclusive Direct Contact Technology provide fast heat transfer and maintain the excellent operation of CPU.
  • Direct Contact Technology: Direct touching copper base is adopted to fit CPU, as well as improving optimal contact area and thermal conductivity.
  • Efficient Cooling: A 120mm fan at 1,700 RPM is ready anytime for the best thermal solution.
  • Support Sockets: Intel LGA 1700/1200/1156/1155/1151/1150; AMD:AM4/AM3+/AM3/AM2+/AM2/FM2+/FM2

SaleBestseller No. 9

Noctua NH-D15, Premium CPU Cooler with 2X NF-A15 PWM 140mm Fans (Brown)

  • State-of-the-art dual-tower design with 6 heatpipes and 2 fans provides class-leading cooling performance for overclocking or near-silent systems
  • Successor of the classic NH-D14; more than 250 awards and recommendations from leading international hardware websites and magazines
  • 2 highly optimised NF-A15 140mm fans with PWM support and Low-Noise Adaptors for automatic speed control and ultra-quiet operation
  • Includes high-end NT-h2 thermal paste and SecuFirm2 mounting system for easy installation on Intel LGA1700 (LGA17xx family) LGA1200, LGA115x, LGA2011, LGA2066 and AMD AM4 & AM5
  • Renowned Noctua quality backed up by 6-year manufacturer’s warranty, deluxe choice for Intel Core i9, i7, i5, i3 (e. g. 12900K, 12700K, 12600K) and AMD Ryzen (e.g. 7950X, 7900X, 7700X, 7600X)

SaleBestseller No. 10

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core, 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler

  • The world’s most advanced processor in the desktop PC gaming segment
  • Can deliver ultra-fast 100+ FPS performance in the world’s most popular games
  • 6 cores and 12 processing threads bundled with the quiet AMD wraith stealth cooler max temps 95°C
  • 4 2 GHz max Boost unlocked for overclocking 35 MB of game Cache DDR4 3200 support
  • For the advanced socket AM4 platform can support PCIe 4 0 on x570 motherboards. OS Support-Windows 10 — 64-Bit Edition, RHEL x86 64-Bit, Ubuntu x86 64-Bit. Note-Operating System (OS) support will vary by manufacturer

Are you looking for top 10 rated am2 socket cpu for your budget in 2022? After evaluating and analyzing in detail more than 58,163 customer satisfaction about top 10 best am2 socket cpu in 2022, we have come up with the top 10 rated products you may be interested in. We have ranked the best brands from Artificial Intelligent and Big Data, as you see below:

Our Best Choice: AMD Athlon X2 7750 2.7GHz 2x512KB Socket AM2+ Dual-Core CPU

Our rating: (4.3 / 5)

Check Price on Amazon

[ad_1]
Boost the general performance of your computer system so you can enjoy the most current video games, develop and edit digital media written content, operate numerous plans and considerably much more with this AMD Athlon X2 7750 Twin-Core CPU! This Athlon X2 Socket AM2+ CPU capabilities a 2700 MHz frequency, 1800 MHz HyperTransport (HT) velocity and a 2 MB L3 cache. Improve today!

AMD Athlon X2 7750 2.7 GHz 2×512 KB Socket AM2+ Dual-Main CPU Common Capabilities:
Athlon X2 Dual-Core processor Design 7750 2700 MHz (2.7 GHz) frequency
1800 MHz (1.8 GHz) HyperTransport (HT) pace 2 x 512 KB L2 cache 2 MB L3 cache 65 nm
95 watt electric power 1. 05 – 1.325 V Voltage Core Socket AM2+

About Douglas Brown

Related Reads

Related Reads

Scroll back to top

AMD’s Socket AM2 processors — The Tech Report

AMD HAS REAPED tremendous benefits from integrating a memory controller into the Athlon 64. Bringing the memory interface one step closer to the CPU has minimized a persistent performance bottleneck in modern microprocessors, and that’s part of the reason the Athlon 64 has been performing backboard-shattering dunks over the heads of Pentiums with regularity since late 2003. The quickness and towering vertical leap came at a cost, however: AMD gained responsibility for managing the memory interface for its processors. That responsibility is why we are gathered here today—to take a look at AMD’s new Socket AM2 processors that incorporate a revamped memory controller capable of talking with the industry’s emerging PC memory standard, DDR2.

AMD’s move to DDR2 memory is a way more complex beast than past transitions to new memory technologies precisely because of that integrated memory controller. We’re not just talking about some new chipsets and motherboards here. Oh, no, old timer; this here newfangled technology is different. AMD has cooked up a new CPU socket and an entire top-to-bottom lineup of new CPUs in order to make DDR2 support possible, from lowly Semprons to the fire-breathing Athlon 64 FX-62.

These new processors face some daunting challenges. Intel is well ahead of AMD in manufacturing technology right now, and the latest Pentiums manage to bring higher performance, lower power use, and smaller thermal envelopes than the “Hot’n’Loud” Pentiums of the 90-nanometer era. At the same time, Intel has slashed prices like a used car salesman after a hail storm, making its Pentium D series a better value than ever. Not only that, but these Socket AM2 processors will have to fend for themselves against Intel’s upcoming Conroe processor, all but assured to set new standards for high performance and low power consumption when it hits the market in a month or two.

AMD has equipped the CPUs in its new lineup with a number of new tools, so that they may face these difficult trials. But do the Socket AM2 processors bring the kinds of advances in performance and energy efficiency necessary to keep AMD in the lead? We’ve tested 10 different CPU configurations in a battery of benchmarks in order to find out.

AMD goes for DDR2 memory
Socket AM2 brings a cluster of new things from AMD, some related to the main goal and some not so much. The main goal, of course, is support for DDR2 memory. The industry created this memory standard in order to achieve higher clock speeds and more bandwidth than the first wave of DDR memory, and after a slow start, DDR2 has delivered. Currently, DDR2 modules run at clock speeds up to 800 MHz and can thus sustain up to twice the peak theoretical bandwidth of DDR400. Some enthusiast-class RAM runs at even higher speeds, although those haven’t yet been sanctioned by standards body JEDEC. DDR2 memory also has the advantage of using less power than DDR, because DDR2 memory chips operate at relatively lower internal clock speeds and require less voltage, so DDR2 is potentially more attractive for laptops… and servers, and desktops, and all the rest.

AMD needs to move to DDR2 not just because of its positives attributes, but also because the rest of the industry is making this same transition. DDR memory will become scarcer and probably more expensive with time, while DDR2 becomes cheaper and more plentiful.

Thus, the Athlon 64 and gang are getting a new memory controller. AMD’s single-core Socket AM2 CPUs can handle DDR2 memory at speeds up to 667 MHz, while the dual-core models like the Athlon 64 X2 and FX-62 can accommodate DDR2 DIMMs up to 800 MHz. Like Socket 939 before it, Socket AM2 has the ability to host dual memory channels so that memory accesses are effectively 128 bits wide. Poke around on the calculator a little bit, and you’ll find that combination gives single-core Semprons and Athlon 64s over 10.6 GB/s of total memory bandwidth with DDR2-667, up from 6.4GB/s with a dual-channel DDR400 config. With dual channels of 800 MHz DDR2, the dual-core chips have as much as 12.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, fully twice that of the previous generation.

Those are some mighty fancy numbers, but the big question about them is simple: will DDR2’s higher potential bandwidth lead to higher performance? We are, of course, about to put that question to the test in a multitude of ways, but don’t get your hopes too high. AMD says to expect about a 1% performance gain on average from the transition to Socket AM2.

Jump back! A whole percent!?

That may help explain why AMD has taken until now to make the DDR2 transition. The Athlon 64’s approach to memory performance has been more about quickness than top speed—about minimizing access latencies rather than pumping through lots of data—and DDR2 has less to offer on the latency front. So we’re not talking about the kinds of real-world performance gains one might expect after hearing those crazy-high bandwidth numbers.

The Socket AM2 infrastructure

Socket AM2 (left) is keyed differently than Socket 939 (right)

As any good geek knows, there’s really nothing more exciting than a CPU socket. It has a whole bunch of small holes, and tiny pins go into them. Don’t hyperventilate, but above you can see the pinouts from processors intended for sockets AM2 and 939. The layouts are similar, but the pins are arranged in different patterns. The hope here is that you won’t succeed in putting an AM2 CPU into a Socket 939 motherboard. If you do, you’ll probably wind up with an interesting conglomeration of bent pins and spent expletives. AMD has done its best, though, to avoid any confusion between the two sockets. (’tis interesting to note, incidentally, that AM2 has 940 pins, only one more than Socket 939. DDR DIMMs have only 184 pins along their edges, while DDR2 modules have 240. Yet AMD has basically had a sufficient number of pins in its sockets to support dual channels of DDR2 since the K8’s inception.)

Socket 939 had a two-post mounting system…

…while Socket AM2 has a four-post arrangement.

The other change with Socket AM2 itself is the heatsink retention mechanism. There are now four holes in the mobo around the socket, and the plastic mounting bracket for standard coolers is now secured by four screws rather than two. The standard retention bracket has changed, as well, with only two tabs available to keep coolers tensioned, where Socket 939’s bracket had six. Some current Socket 939 coolers only use two tabs and will adapt well to Socket AM2. Others will be consigned to wandering the streets aimlessly, muttering to themselves about where the tabs or holes went. My personal favorite cooler, the wondrous Zalman CNPS9500 LED, won’t work with Socket AM2 unless someone comes up with a new retention kit for it.

 

The processors of Socket AM2
Moving to this new socket wouldn’t be any fun without a welcoming party, and so AMD has uncorked a couple of new models to tempt us. The Athlon 64 X2 5000+ flips bits at a healthy 2.6 GHz, but it only has 512 KB of L2 cache for each of its two CPU cores, keeping it a half step down from AMD’s previous top chip, the Athlon 64 FX-60. Here’s an unnecessarily large photograph of the X2 5000+.

The Athlon 64 X2 5000+ is new for Socket AM2

The new king of the hill, meanwhile, is the Athlon 64 FX-62, which packs a meg of cache per core and a 2.8 GHz clock frequency. Like prior members of the FX line, the FX-62’s upper clock multipliers are unlocked, so it’s ready-made for overclocking.

The rest of the Socket AM2 family looks like so:

Model Clock speed L2 cache TDP Price
Athlon 64 FX-62 2.8 GHz 2 x 1024 KB 125 W $1,031
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2. 6 GHz 2 x 512 KB 89 W $696
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4 GHz 2 x 1024 KB 89 W $645
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.4 GHz 2 x 512 KB 89 W $558
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2. 2 GHz 2 x 1024 KB 89 W $470
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2 GHz 2 x 512 KB 89 W $365
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0 GHz 2 x 512 KB 89 W $303
Athlon 64 3800+ 2. 4 GHz 512 KB 62 W $290
Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2 GHz 512 KB 62 W $189
Sempron 3600+ 2.0 GHz 256 KB 62 W $123
Sempron 3500+ 2. 0 GHz 128 KB 62 W $109
Sempron 3400+ 1.8 GHz 256 KB 62 W $97
Sempron 3200+ 1.8 GHz 128 KB 62 W $87
Sempron 3000+ 1. 6 GHz 256 KB 62 W $77

That’s a bundle of new CPUs. The first thing you’ll probably want to notice in the table above is the “TDP” column. TDP stands for “thermal design power,” and it’s a measure of how much power and cooling a chip will need. With Socket AM2 processors, TDPs are down substantially. The Athlon 64 X2 line drops from 110 W on Socket 939 to 89 W now, and single-core Athlon 64s are down from 89 W to 62 W. The lone straggler at a higher TDP is the FX-62, but that’s pretty much expected from a flagship performance part.

The prices above are correct both for Socket AM2 processors and for the corresponding Socket 939 and 754 models, where they exist. To give you some sense of the competition, Intel has positioned the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 similarly to the FX-62, with a very proud price tag of $999. The next rung down the ladder, the Pentium D 960, weighs in at $523, just below the Athlon 64 X2 4600+. The step after that is a long one, all the way down to $316 for the fire-sale-priced Pentium D 950. That would place the Pentium D 950 about 50 bucks below the X2 4200+. We will be testing some of these speed grades against one another shortly, so keep those prices in mind.

There’s another new addition to AM2 CPUs not included in the table above, and that’s support for AMD’s virtualization technology. This feature probably won’t matter much for desktop users in the near term, but these processors can execute a handful of new instructions that provide hardware assistance to virtual machine programs such as VMWare. At some point down the road, regular desktop PCs may use hardware-assisted virtualization to cordon off low-security areas, for running things like web browsers and file transfer clients, from the main program execution space. For now, virtualization will probably be more useful in servers.

That’s not it for the new Socket AM2 processors, believe it or not. Think these guys aren’t serious about combating Intel’s Conroe? Think again. AMD has also pulled the curtains back on a whole slew of “Energy Efficient” variants of its Socket AM2 processor lineup with even lower power and cooling requirements. These processors run at the same clock speeds and deliver the same performance as the non-EE versions, but they’re capable of running at lower voltages.

Energy Efficient Model Clock speed L2 cache TDP Price
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4 GHz 2 x 1024 KB 65 W $671
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2. 4 GHz 2 x 512 KB 65 W $601
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2 GHz 2 x 1024 KB 65 W $514
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2 GHz 2 x 512 KB 65 W $417
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2. 0 GHz 2 x 512 KB 65 W $353
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0 GHz 2 x 512 KB 35 W $364
Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2 GHz 512 KB 35 W $231
Sempron 3400+ 1. 8 GHz 256 KB 35 W $145
Sempron 3200+ 1.8 GHz 128 KB 35 W $119
Sempron 3000+ 1.6 GHz 256 KB 35 W $101

These new Energy Efficient models come with TDPs of 65 and 35 watts, although they do carry a price premium that ranges between $24 and $52. On average, the premium for an Energy Efficient is about 40 bucks, or roughly 19% the price of the base model.

The official word on the Energy Efficient chips is that they’ll be available in “May,” which I suppose gives AMD a few more hours. However, we haven’t yet received any of the Energy Efficient models for testing, even though we asked really nicely. They’re also not yet listed on our price search engine.

Some quirks of AMD’s DDR2 memory support
So. Get this. On Socket AM2 Athlon 64 systems, the clock speed of system memory is derived from the CPU’s clock frequency. That makes sense, since the memory controller lives onboard the CPU. The memory clock runs at some fraction of the CPU clock speed, and the ratio of CPU clock to memory clock is determined by a divisor. Yet only whole-number divisors are available on these chips, and that limits the available memory clock speeds.

Let’s illustrate. Take, for example, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ running at 2.4 GHz—or 2400 MHz. If you want to run DDR2 memory at an effective speed of 800 MHz, you can use a divisor of six. 2400 MHz divided by six is 400 MHz, and a base clock of 400 MHz results in DDR2 memory humming along nicely at an effective 800 MHz. Similarly, a divisor of nine will produce a base memory clock of 266.6 MHz, perfect for DDR2-533 memory.

But what if you want to run DDR2-667 memory? You could use a divisor of seven to get to 343 MHz, or effectively 686 MHz once DDR2’s clock-doubling does its magic, or you could try a divisor of eight, to hit 300/600 MHz memory clocks. Getting to 667 MHz is impossible, though.

AMD’s answer to this problem is to get as close to the JEDEC-specified memory clock frequency without going over and call it a day. Not kidding. Our Athlon 64 X2 4800+ would run DDR2-667 memory at 600 MHz.

Try another example. The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ flips bits at 2.2 GHz. With whole-number divisors, it can set its memory clock speeds to, effectively, 489 MHz for DDR2-533, 628 MHz for DDR2-667, and 733 MHz for DDR2-800. That’s it. None of ’em will run at their full potential.

I haven’t consulted with the appropriate JEDEC committee, but I believe the technical term for an implementation like this one is “half-assed.” Yes, it seems to work well enough, and no, underclocking memory isn’t likely to be an egregious violation of the spec. We’ve already acknowledged that AMD’s approach to memory performance focused much more on latency than bandwidth, and any overclocker knows we can probably squeeze tighter timings (and thus lower latencies) out of that underclocked RAM with a bit of tweaking. Still, I find it hard to believe AMD’s new processors actually handle memory clock speeds in this way.

This quirk will likely have odd implications for the relative performance of different speed grades of Socket AM2 processors in tasks particularly sensitive to memory bandwidth. System power consumption will also be affected, I suppose.

The practical effect of this limitation on our testing was this. Two of our Socket AM2 processors, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and the FX-62, were able to run our DDR2-800 memory right at 800 MHz. For these chips, we used 4-4-4-12 memory timings with a 2T command rate. The Athlon 64 X2 5000+ ran the memory at 743 MHz, and the X2 4200+ was restricted to 733 MHz. We kept the same basic memory timings for those CPUs, but the command rate was cranked down to 1T. I suppose further tweaking might be possible, but there’s no way to run a true apples-to-apples comparison at DDR2-800 memory speeds when the CPUs can’t do it.

If you’re buying memory for a Socket AM2 system, you’ll want to watch out for a few things. The DDR2 memory scene to date has been dominated by DIMMs intended primarily for Intel-based systems. The Socket AM2 memory controller is a different animal, and we’ve found that DIMMs that work fine on an Intel system at certain memory timings may not do so on AM2. Also, because Intel systems have higher built-in access latencies thanks to their reliance on a front-side bus, makers of enthusiast DIMMs seem to have have focused more on high memory clock speeds than on tighter timings. That’s beginning to change as Socket AM2 hardware hits the market. We were able to run Corsair’s new 1GB TWIN2X2048-8500C5 modules at the relatively tight timings mentioned above, even though they are rated for 1066 MHz clock speeds with much looser timings.

These puppies did 4-4-4-12 with a 2T command rate at 800 MHz on AM2

As for higher memory clock speeds on the new Socket AM2 processors, they ought to be possible given how AMD’s memory divisor system works, but the BIOS of our Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe mobo would only allow us to choose from DDR2 400, 533, 667, and 800 memory speeds. The BIOS has tweaking options galore, but I saw no way to directly access the memory divisor. In fact, the BIOS obscures the true memory clock speed from the user. One would presumably have to overclock the base system clock/HyperTransport clock in order to get to 1066 MHz memory frequencies with this mobo.

 

Our testing methods
Please note that the two Pentium D 900-series processors in our test are actually a Pentium Extreme Edition 965 chip that’s been set to the appropriate core and bus speeds and had Hyper-Threading disabled in order to simulate the actual products. Similarly, our Socket AM2 versions of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and 4200+ are actually the Athlon 64 FX-62 and X2 5000+, respectively, clocked down to the appropriate speeds. In all cases, the performance of our “simulated” processor models should be identical to the actual products.

Also, I’ve placed asterisks next to the memory clock speeds of the Socket AM2 test systems in the table below. As explained on the previous page, a couple of these systems couldn’t set their memory clocks to exactly 800 MHz.

As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and the results were averaged.

Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor Pentium D 950 3.4GHz
Pentium D 960 3.6GHz
Pentium Extreme Edition 965 3.73GHz Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2. 2GHz
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz
Athlon 64 FX-62 2.8GHz
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz
Athlon 64 FX-60 2.6GHz
System bus 800 MHz (200 MHz quad-pumped) 1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped) 1GHz HyperTransport 1GHz HyperTransport
Motherboard Intel D975XBX Intel D975XBX Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
BIOS revision BX97510J.86A.1073.
2006. 0427.1210
BX97510J.86A.1073.
2006.0427.1210
0402 1103
North bridge 975X MCH 975X MCH nForce 590 SLI SPP nForce4 SLI X16
South bridge ICH7R ICH7R nForce 590 SLI MCP nForce4 SLI
Chipset drivers INF Update 7.2.2.1007
Intel Matrix Storage Manager 5.5.0.1035
INF Update 7.2.2.1007
Intel Matrix Storage Manager 5. 5.0.1035
SMBus driver 4.52
IDE/SATA driver 6.67
SMBus driver 4.5
IDE/SATA driver 5.52
Memory size 2GB (2 DIMMs) 2GB (2 DIMMs) 2GB (2 DIMMs) 2GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Crucial Ballistix PC2-8000
DDR2 SDRAM at 800 MHz
Crucial Ballistix PC2-8000
DDR2 SDRAM at 800 MHz
Corsair CM2X1024-8500C5
DDR2 SDRAM at 800 MHz*
Corsair CMX1024-4400 Pro
DDR SDRAM at 400 MHz
CAS latency (CL) 4 4 4 2. 5
RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) 4 4 4 3
RAS precharge (tRP) 4 4 4 3
Cycle time (tRAS) 15 15 12 8
Audio Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5
with SigmaTel 5.10.4991.0 drivers
Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5
with SigmaTel 5. 10.4991.0 drivers
Integrated nForce 590 MCP/AD1988B with SoundMAX 5.10.2.4490 drivers Integrated nForce4/ALC850
with Realtek 5.10.0.6070 drivers
Hard drive Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA 150
Graphics GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB PCI-E with ForceWare 84.25 drivers
GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB PCI-E with ForceWare 84.21 drivers (WorldBench only)
OS Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 (WorldBench only)

Thanks to Corsair and Crucial for providing us with memory for our testing. Both of them provide products and support that are far and away superior to generic, no-name memory.

Also, all of our test systems were powered by OCZ GameXStream 700W power supply units. Thanks to OCZ for providing these units for our use in testing.

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1280×1024 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

  • SiSoft Sandra 2007.5.10.98 64-bit
  • CPU-Z 1.33
  • Compiled binary of C Linpack port from Ace’s Hardware
  • POV-Ray for Windows 3.6.1 64-bit
  • SMPOV 4.6
  • Cinebench 9.5 64-bit Edition
  • 3ds max 8.0
  • LAME MT 3.97a 64-bit
  • Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Edition
  • Sphinx 3.3
  • picCOLOR 4.0 build 561 64-bit
  • The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 1.1
  • Battlefield 2 1.22
  • Quake 4 1.2 with trq4demo5
  • FEAR 1.03
  • Unreal Tournament 2004 v3369 and 3369 64-bit Edition with trdemo1
  • 3DMark06 1.0.2
  • WorldBench 5. 0

The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

Memory performance
These synthetic memory tests should give us the most vivid indication of what DDR2 memory can bring to the Athlon 64.

The Socket AM2 processors really do have quite a bit more bandwidth than the Socket 939 variants. The X2 5000+ is handicapped a little bit by having to run its memory at 743 MHz. The lower-clocked Athlon 64 X2 4800+ fares better thanks to its full-speed DDR2 800 memory. Still, even the lowly Athlon 64 X2 4200+, with memory at 733 MHz, pumps through nearly 8 GB/s. None of these puppies is going to be starved for bandwidth compared to the competition.

This little version of Linpack isn’t optimized enough to be a good measure of floating-point math capability, but it can show us the size and speed of the cache hierarchy on a CPU. The AM2 processors match their Socket 939 counterparts for the most part, but AM2 is faster once matrix sizes grow large enough to spill over into main memory. Note how main memory comes into play sooner for the processors with a smaller 512K L2 cache. On the flip side, the Pentiums’ 2 MB L2 caches are… very big.

With our relatively tight DDR2 memory timings, the Socket AM2 processors hit new lows for memory access latency, although the differences between sockets 939 and AM2 vary depending on the CPU and memory clock speeds involved. Naturally, the chips that can run their memory at 800 MHz do best here.

 

Gaming performance

Quake 4
We tested Quake 4 by running our own custom timedemo with and without its multiprocessor optimizations enabled. These can be switched on in the game console by setting the “r_usesmp” variable to “1”.

Above the following benchmark graph, and throughout most of the tests in this review, we’ve included Task Manager plots showing CPU utilization. These plots were captured on the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 system, and they should offer some indication of how much impact multithreading has on the operation of each application. Single-threaded apps may sometimes show up as spread across multiple processors in Task Manager, but the total amount of space below all four lines shouldn’t equal more than the total area of one square if the test is truly single-threaded. Anything significantly more than that is probably an indication of some multithreaded component in the execution of the test. Because WorldBench’s tests are entirely scripted, however, we weren’t able to capture Task Manager plots for them, as you’ll notice later.

NVIDIA’s video drivers are now multithreaded, so we should see some amount of multithreading action happening in any application that uses the GPU for 3D graphics, even if the game is only single-threaded.

With “r_usesmp 0”

With “r_usesmp 1”

We have a couple of like-to-like comparisons between sockets 939 and AM2 here, the X2 4200+ and the X2 4800+. In both cases, Socket AM2 proves faster, although not by a huge margin. In fact, the AM2-based X2 5000+ beats out the FX-60, despite having a smaller L2 cache.

The Pentiums can’t quite keep up, and oddly, the Extreme Edition 965 is the worst of the lot. What’s likely happening here is that its Hyper-Threading capability is proving a liability rather than an asset when Quake 4’s multiprocessor support is enabled. Without Hyper-Threading, the Pentium D processors gain more when SMP support is active.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
We tested Oblivion by manually playing through a couple of specific points in the game five times for each CPU while recording frame rates using the FRAPS utility. Each gameplay sequence lasted 60 seconds. This method has the advantage of simulating real gameplay quite closely, but it comes at the expense of precise repeatability. We believe five sample sessions are sufficient to get reasonably consistent and trustworthy results. In addition to average frame rates, we’ve included the low frames rates, because those tend to reflect the user experience in performance-critical situations. In order to diminish the effect of outliers, we’ve reported the median of the five low frame rates we encountered.

We set Oblivion’s graphical quality settings to “Medium,” 800×600 resolution, with HDR lighting enabled.

Our first test is run down a road through the countryside.

Our second Oblivion tests is a quick run around the Imperial City Arboretum.

An odd thing happens here in the battle between sockets 939 and AM2. On the country road, the Socket 939 processors, the X2 4800+ and X2 4200+, both turn in higher average frame rates, but their median lows are both lower. Not sure what to make of that.

In the Arboretum loop, the AM2 chips are faster on average and at the low points. Also, the X2 5000+ once again outdoes the FX-60, striking a blow for Socket AM2’s supremacy. And the FX-62 is just a monster.

The Pentium D processors all struggled with Oblivion, and let me tell you, I noticed it when I was playing on these systems. Frame rates were quite perceptibly slow and jerky. I don’t think the median lows in the 36-38 FPS range are entirely accurate here. It felt worse than that, somehow.

 

F.E.A.R.
We have used FRAPS for testing this game in the past, but since we were expecting a very tight race between sockets 939 and AM2, we decided to use F.E.A.R.’s built-in “test settings” benchmark, which produces less variable results from run to run. The game’s “Computer” and “Graphics” performance options were both set to “High.”

Once more, Socket AM2 comes out ahead by a few frames per second, and again, the Pentium D systems just look outclassed.

Battlefield 2
We used FRAPS to capture BF2 frame rates just as we did with Oblivion. Graphics quality options were set to BF2’s canned “High” quality profile. This game has a built-in cap at 100 frames per second, and we intentionally left that cap enabled so we could offer a faithful look at real-world performance.

There’s too much variability in our manual FRAPS testing of BF2 to draw too many strong conclusions about AM2 versus 939. Clearly, AMD’s fastest chip proves fastest overall yet again, and the Pentiums are still generally slower.

Unreal Tournament 2004
We used a more traditional recorded timedemo for testing UT2004, but we tried out two versions of the game, the original 32-bit flavor and the 64-bit version.

Socket AM2’s advantage looks real, but slight.

 

3DMark06
3DMark06 combines the results from its graphics and CPU tests in order to reach an overall score. Here’s how the processors did overall and in each of those tests.

Given what we saw on the two preceding pages, one wouldn’t expect the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 to take the number-two overall spot in “the gamer’s benchmark.” That’s what happened when we ran the tests, though. As you can see, performance in the graphics tests is almost entirely bound by our GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card, with NVIDIA’s graphics drivers offloading some work to a second CPU core in each. That leaves 3DMark’s CPU tests to determine the difference between the CPUs, and the quad-threaded nature of those tests works wonders for the Extreme Edition 965’s standing.

Despite FutureMark’s best intentions in making CPU performance an element of 3DMark06 overall scores, their CPU benchmarks don’t appear to track well with our experience in today’s games.

 

WorldBench overall performance
WorldBench uses scripting to step through a series of tasks in common Windows applications and then produces an overall score for comparison. More impressively, WorldBench spits out individual results for its component application tests, allowing us to compare performance in each. We’ll look at the overall score, and then we’ll show individual application results alongside the results from some of our own application tests.

Sockets AM2 and 939 are essentially in a dead heat in WorldBench. How they got there, however, is another story, as the results from individual tests will show us. Meanwhile, the Pentiums can’t catch a break.

Audio editing and encoding

LAME MP3 encoding
LAME MT is, as you might have guessed, a multithreaded version of the LAME MP3 encoder. LAME MT was created as a demonstration of the benefits of multithreading specifically on a Hyper-Threaded CPU like the Pentium 4. You can even download a paper (in Word format) describing the programming effort.

Rather than run multiple parallel threads, LAME MT runs the MP3 encoder’s psycho-acoustic analysis function on a separate thread from the rest of the encoder using simple linear pipelining. That is, the psycho-acoustic analysis happens one frame ahead of everything else, and its results are buffered for later use by the second thread. The author notes, “In general, this approach is highly recommended, for it is exponentially harder to debug a parallel application than a linear one.”

We have results for two different 64-bit versions of LAME MT from different compilers, one from Microsoft and one from Intel, doing two different types of encoding, variable bit rate and constant bit rate. We are encoding a massive 10-minute, 6-second 101 MB WAV file here, as we have done in many of our previous CPU reviews.

MusicMatch Jukebox

Socket AM2 doesn’t change the performance picture much at all in these audio encoding tests. The FX-62 maintains its death-grip on first place.

 

Video editing and encoding

Windows Media Encoder x64 Edition Advanced Profile
We asked Windows Media Encoder to convert a gorgeous 1080-line WMV HD video clip into a 320×240 streaming format using the Windows Media Video 8 Advanced Profile codec.

Windows Media Encoder

Adobe Premiere

VideoWave Movie Creator

Video encoding is generally regarded as a relatively bandwidth-intensive task, and the Socket AM2 processors show up their Socket 939 counterparts in these tests.

 

Image processing

Adobe Photoshop

ACDSee PowerPack

picCOLOR
picCOLOR was created by Dr. Reinert H. G. Müller of the FIBUS Institute. This isn’t Photoshop; picCOLOR’s image analysis capabilities can be used for scientific applications like particle flow analysis. Dr. Müller has supplied us with new revisions of his program for some time now, all the while optimizing picCOLOR for new advances in CPU technology, including MMX, SSE2, and Hyper-Threading. Naturally, he’s ported picCOLOR to 64 bits, so we can test performance with the x86-64 ISA. Eight of the 12 functions in the test are multithreaded.

Scores in picCOLOR, by the way, are indexed against a single-processor Pentium III 1 GHz system, so that a score of 4.14 works out to 4.14 times the performance of the reference machine.

Socket AM2’s head-to-head advantage in our image processing tests ranges from zero in Photoshop to fairly slight elsewhere, but the X2 5000+ continues to give the FX-60 fits.

 

Multitasking and office applications

MS Office

Mozilla

Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder

Now here’s something different: a test where the Socket AM2 CPUs are markedly slower. WorldBench’s developers told us long ago that the Mozilla test was particularly sensitive to memory access latencies, and we appear to have found an app where DDR400 is somehow faster than DDR2-800. The multitasking test that adds Windows Media Encoder alongside Mozilla evens things up a little, but the Socket 939 CPUs remain faster than their AM2 versions.

 

Other applications

Sphinx speech recognition
Ricky Houghton first brought us the Sphinx benchmark through his association with speech recognition efforts at Carnegie Mellon University. Sphinx is a high-quality speech recognition routine. We use two different versions, built with two different compilers, in an attempt to ensure we’re getting the best possible performance.

Hot on the heels of their thrashing in Mozilla, the AM2 processors pull a coup in Sphinx. This app has always responded well to more memory bandwidth.

WinZip

Nero

WinZip is nearly a dead heat, but Nero’s a clear win for AM2 and the nForce 590 SLI disk controller.

 

3D modeling and rendering

Cinebench 2003
Cinebench measures performance in Maxon’s Cinema 4D modeling and rendering app. This is the 64-bit version of Cinebench, primed and ready for these 64-bit processors.

These tests are largely compute-bound, and more memory bandwidth makes little difference. The one exception is the OpenGL hardware test, where the GPU comes into play.

 

POV-Ray rendering
POV-Ray just recently made the move to 64-bit binaries, and thanks to the nifty SMPOV distributed rendering utility, we’ve been able to make it multithreaded, as well. SMPOV spins off any number of instances of the POV-Ray renderer, and it will divvy up the scene in several different ways. For this scene, the best choice was to divide the screen horizontally between the different threads, which provides a fairly even workload.

We considered using the new beta of POV-Ray with native support for SMP, but it proved to be very, very slow. We’ll have to try it again once development has progressed further.

3dsmax 8 rendering
For our 3ds max test, we used the “architecture” scene from SPECapc for 3ds max 7. This scene is very complex and should be nice exercise for these CPUs. Using 3ds max’s default scanline renderer, we first rendered frames 0 to 10 of the scene at 500×300 resolution. The renderer’s “Use SSE” option was enabled.

Next, we rendered just the first frame of the scene in 3ds max’s mental ray renderer. Notice that we’ve changed our time scale from seconds to minutes for this one.

Again, rendering is CPU bound, so faster memory doesn’t change much. The FX-62’s high clock speed, though, serves it very well.

 

SiSoft Sandra
Next up is SiSoft’s Sandra system diagnosis program, which includes a number of different benchmarks. The one of interest to us is the “multimedia” benchmark, intended to show off the benefits of “multimedia” extensions like MMX and SSE/2. According to SiSoft’s FAQ, the benchmark actually does a fractal computation:

This benchmark generates a picture (640×480) of the well-known Mandelbrot fractal, using 255 iterations for each data pixel, in 32 colours. It is a real-life benchmark rather than a synthetic benchmark, designed to show the improvements MMX/Enhanced, 3DNow!/Enhanced, SSE(2) bring to such an algorithm.

The benchmark is multi-threaded for up to 64 CPUs maximum on SMP systems. This works by interlacing, i.e. each thread computes the next column not being worked on by other threads. Sandra creates as many threads as there are CPUs in the system and assigns [sic] each thread to a different CPU.

We’re using the 64-bit port of Sandra. The “Integer x16” version of this test uses integer numbers to simulate floating-point math. The floating-point version of the benchmark takes advantage of SSE2 to process up to eight Mandelbrot iterations at once.

Here’s a rare test where the FX-62 doesn’t utterly destroy the competition. This one uses the Extreme Edition 965’s Hyper-Threading and high clock speeds to great effect.

 

Power consumption
We took our power readings at the wall outlet using an Extech 380803 power meter. The “idle” readings were taken at the Windows desktop, while the “load” readings were taken using SMPOV and the 64-bit version of the POV-Ray renderer to load up the CPUs. In all cases, we asked SMPOV to use the same number of threads as there were CPU front ends in Task Manager—so four for the Extreme Edition 965, two for the Athlon 64 X2, and so on. The test rigs were all equipped with OCZ GameXStream 700 W power supply units.

The graphs below have results for “power management” and “no power management.” That deserves some explanation. By “power management,” we mean SpeedStep or Cool’n’Quiet. In the case of the Pentium XE 965, the C1E halt state is always active, even in the “no power management” tests.

The tricky part about these tests is getting good numbers for our “simulated” CPU speed grades. In order to make it work, you have to set the proper CPU core voltage, not just the right clock speeds. I made an attempt at simulating the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and 4200+ on Socket AM2 and the Pentium D 950/960 by setting the CPU voltages manually, but I’ve put an asterisk next to those CPUs in our results as a reminder that they’re simulated.

For the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, I set the voltage at 1. 35 V. The X2 4200+ was set to 1.3 V. The “power management” idle scores were simply taken from chips with the same cache size (the FX-62 and 5000+, respectively), because all of these processors share the same 1 GHz/1.1 V idle with Cool’n’Quiet.

The Pentium D 950 and 960 were trickier, since each Pentium D’s voltage needs are programmed at the factory. In this case, I stuck with the default of 1.312 V for both speed grades. On an 800 MHz bus, the Pentium D 950 and 950 both clocked down to 2.4 GHz at idle via the C1E halt mechanism. The Extreme Edition 965 clocked down to 3.2 GHz at idle.

The Socket AM2 systems unequivocally use the least power at idle, but under load, the story changes a bit. The battle between 939 and AM2 appears to be kind of a wash with the CPUs going full tilt, and the X2 4200+ on Socket 939 actually uses less power than the AM2 system. Most jarringly, the FX-62 eclipses the Pentiums when it comes to power use under load. 230 watts for the whole system isn’t horrible, but Intel’s chips are much more frugal with power than in the past.

 

Conclusions
Well, Socket AM2 isn’t going to set the world on fire with its amazing speed boost compared to Socket 939. The move to DDR2 memory is an upgrade, but a very minor one in terms of overall performance. Memory bandwidth is obviously, stupendously improved with Socket AM2, and memory latency is actually a little lower, too. Unfortunately, these changes only translate into tangible gains in a handful of our application benchmarks. Games and video encoding tests seem to make the most use of Socket AM2’s additional bandwidth, as well as our speech recognition benchmark and a few others. Many other applications show no improvement at all. Socket AM2 does bring lower power consumption at idle than Socket 939, but that advantage seems to evaporate when the CPU is busy, in spite of the lower TDP ratings for the newer CPUs.

For now, that’s good enough. Intel’s Pentium D and Extreme Edition processors simply can’t keep up with the Athlon 64 X2. The two new speed grades, the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and FX-62, only extend AMD’s performance lead, and the FX-62 dominates the current crop of desktop PC processors.

We’ll soon know for sure whether the FX-62 is fast enough to take on Intel’s next-gen CPUs and win. Based on what’s we’ve seen from Intel’s Core microarchitecture in the form of Conroe and Woodcrest, I have my doubts whether the FX-62 will be sufficient. The new Energy Efficient Athlon 64 X2s are intriguing, and they may help AMD to stay competitive—once they arrive. As you may have heard, AMD is also hinting that it has yet another trick up its sleeve to counter Conroe. We shall have to see about that. 

List table of all AMD socket AM2 processors — Features, specifications, prices — FXeon.ru

Fxeon Processors 7 comments

All AM2 processors. This page contains the main technical specifications for all AM2 processors, as well as their current prices.

AMD AM2 processors are represented by models:

  • Athlon 64 (1-2 cores)
  • Sempron (1-2 cores, reduced cache)
  • Opteron (2 cores) 1000MHz 125W 90nm DDR2-800 Windsor Opteron
    1224 SE ? 2 3.2GHz 2MB 1000MHz 125W 90nm DDR2 5
    Athlon 64 x2
    6000+ 1 326 ₽ 2 3.1/3 GHC 1/2 MB 1000 MHz 89/125 VT 90nm DDR2-800 Brisbane/
    Windsor Opteron
    1222 ? 2 3 GHz 2 MB 1000 MHz 103 W 90 nm

    900 5 4 90 90 5 Santana 5
    Opteron
    1222 SE ? 2 3GHz 2MB 1000MHz 125W 90nm 96 Santana 50056
    Athlon 64 x2
    5800+ 2 324 ₽ 2 3 GHC 1 MB

    1000 MHz

    9005 89 WT

    Nm

    DDR2-800

    BriS
    Athlon 64 x2
    5600+ 1 386 ₽ 2 2. 9/2.8 GHz 1/2 MB 1000 MHz

    9005 89 W 65/9 Nm

    DDR2 -800 Brisbane/
    Windsor Athlon 64 x2
    5400+ 907 ₽ 2 2.8 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz

    9005/89 WTE

    65/90 Nm

    .
    Windsor Athlon 64
    FX-62 ? 2 2.8 GHz 2 MB 1000 MHz 125 W 90 Nm DDR2-800 WINDSOR Opteron
    1220 ? 2 2.8GHz 2MB 1000MHz 103W 90nm DDR2 5
    Opteron
    1220SE ? 2 2.8GHz 2MB 1000MHz 125W 90nm DDR2 5
    Athlon 64 X2
    5200+ $5. 99 2 2.7/2.6 GHz 1/2MB 1000MHz 65/89W ​​ 65/90nm DDR2-800 Brisbane/
    Windsor65
    Athlon 64 x2
    5000+ 795 ₽ 2 2.6 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz

    9005/89 W.89 WT

    904 DDR2-800

    BROM Windsor Opteron
    1218 HE ? 2 2.6 GHz 2MB 1000MHz 65W 90nm DDR2 Santa Ana Opteron
    1218 ? 2 2.6GHz 2MB 1000MHz 103W 90nm DDR2 5
    ATHLON 64 X2
    5050E 4 572 ₽ 2 2.6 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz 45 WT 65 nm DDR2-800 Brisbane Athlon 64 x2
    BE-2450 3 875 ₽ 2 2. 5 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz

    9004 45 W.
    Athlon 64 x2
    4850e 4 030 ₽ 2 2.5 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz

    900 WT 65 Nm

    9005 DDR2-800

    Brisbane Athlon 64 x2
    4800+ 992 ₽ 2 2.5 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz

    9005 65 Nm

    9005 DDR2-800

    BriS
    Athlon 64 X2
    4800+ ? 2 2.4 GHz 2 MB 1000 MHz 65/89 W 90 Nm DDR2-800 Windsor Athlon 64 X2
    4600+ 2_200_ Rhesi 2 2.4 GHC 1 MB 1000 MHz

    9005/89 VT 90 Nm DDR2-800 WINDSOR

    6
    Opteron
    1216 HE ? 2 2.4GHz 2MB 1000MHz 65W 90nm 90 50 Santana 50
    Opteron
    1216 ? 2 2. 4 GHz 2MB 1000MHz 103W 90nm DDR2 Santa Ana Athlon 64 X2
    BE-2400 ? 2 2.3 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz 45 W Nm DDR2-800 Brisbane Athlon 64 X2
    4400+ $7 65W 65nm DDR2-800 Brisbane/
    Windsor Athlon 64 X2
    4450e ? 2 2.3 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz 45 W Nm DDR2-800 Brisbane Athlon 64 X2
    4200+ ? 2 2.2 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz 65/89 W 65 nm DDR2-800 Brisbane/
    Windsor Opteron
    1214 HE ? 2 2.2GHz 2MB 1000MHz 65W 90nm 90nm 90 50 Santana 50
    Opteron
    1214 ? 2 2. 2GHz 2MB 1000MHz 103W 90nm DDR2 5
    Sempron X2
    2300 ? 2 2.2 GHz 512 kB 800 MHz 65 W 65 nm

    9005 4 Brisbane 4 Brisbane 4 Brisbane 4 90 5 90
    Athlon 64 X2
    BE-2350 ? 2 2.1 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz 45 W Nm DDR2-800 Brisbane Athlon 64 X2
    4050e ? 2 2.1GHz 1MB 1000MHz 45W 65nm Brisbane 906 905 DDR2-800
    Athlon 64 x2
    4000+ 1 581 ₽ 2 2/2.1 GHz 1/2 MB 1000 MHz

    9005/89 VT 65/9 Nm 900.9 Nm 900/9 Nm -800 Brisbane/
    Windsor Athlon 64 X2
    3800+ 931 RUB 2 2GHz 1MB 1000MHz 65/89W ​​ 90nm DDR2-800

    Winds6or
    Opteron
    1212 HE ? 2 2GHz 2MB 1000MHz 65W 90nm 60 90A Santana 5A
    Opteron
    1212 ? 2 2 GHz 2 MB 1000 MHz 103W 90nm DDR2 Santa Ana Sempron x2
    2200 ? 2 2 GHz 512 kb 800 MHz 65 W 65 nm DDR2 900 560
    Athlon 64 X2
    BE-2300 ? 2 1. 9GHz 1MB 1000MHz 45W 65nm DDR2-806

    Brisbane Athlon 64 x2
    3600+ 1 107 ₽ 2 1.9 GHz 1/0.5 MB 1000 MHz 65/90 nm

    DDR2-800 Brisbane/
    Windsor Opteron
    1210 HE ? 2 1.8GHz 2MB 1000MHz 65W 90nm 90 50 Santana 50
    Opteron
    1210 ? 2 1.8GHz 2MB 1000MHz 103W 90nm DDR2 5
    Athlon 64 X2
    3400+ ? 2 1.8GHz 1MB 1000MHz 35W 90nm 900 Windsor56 9006

    DDR2-800
    Athlon 64 X2
    3400e ? 2 1.8GHz 1MB 1000MHz 22W 65nm DDR2

    900
    Sempron x2
    2100 ? 2 1. 8 GHz 512 kb 800 MHz 65 W 65 nm

    9005 4 Brisbane 4 Brisbane 4 Brisbane 4 Brisbane 90 905 90
    Athlon 64 X2
    3250e Rs.0056

    22W 65nm DDR2-800 Brisbane Athlon 64
    LE-1660 ? 1 2.8 GHz 0.5 MB 1000 MHz 45 W Nm DDR2-800 LIIMA Athlon 64
    LE-1640 ? 1 2.7/2.6 GHz 0.5/1 MB 1000 MHz 45 W 90 nm DDR2-800 Lima Athlon 64
    4000+ ? 1 2.6 GHz 0.5 MB 1000 MHz 62 W DDR2-800 BRISBANE/
    WINDSOR Athlon 64
    LE-1620 ? 1 2.4GHz 1MB 1000MHz 45W 90nm 9050 DDR2-800
    Athlon 64
    3800+ ? 1 2. 4 GHz 0.5 MB 1000 MHz 45/62 W

    9005/90 Nm DDR2-800 Orleans Sempron 64
    LE-1300 ? 1 2.3GHz 1MB 1000MHz 45W 65nm Sparta 56 9056 4 DDR2-606
    Athlon 64
    LE-1600 ? 1 2.2GHz 1MB 1000MHz 45W 90nm 9050 DDR2-800
    Sempron 64
    LE-1250 ? 1 2.2GHz 1MB 1000MHz 45W 65nm Sparta 56 9056 4 DDR2-606
    Athlon 64
    3500+ ? 1 2.2 GHz 0.5 MB 1000MHz 45/62W 65/90nm DDR2-800 Orleans Sempron
    3800+ ? 1 2.2GHz 256Kb 800MHz 62W 90nm

    4 Manila 9005 DDR2 6 9005
    Sempron 64
    LE-1200 ? 1 2. 1 GHz 1 MB 1000 MHz 45 W 65 nm DDR2-667 Sparta Athlon 64
    3200+ ? 1 2 GHz 0.5 MB 1000 MHz 45/62 W

    9005/90 Nm DDR2-800 Orleans Sempron 64
    LE-1150 ? 1 2GHz 256Kb 1000MHz 45W 65nm DDR2-667
    Athlon 64
    3100+ ? 1 2GHz 512Kb 1000MHz 25W 65nm

    6

    D605 9005
    Sempron
    3600+ ? 1 2GHz 256kHz 800MHz 62W 90nm DDR2-667 9005 6 Manila 9005 6
    Sempron
    3500+ ? 1 2GHz 128kHz 800MHz 62W 90nm DDR2-667 Manila Sempron 64
    LE-1100 ? 1 1. 9 GHz 256 KB 1000 MHz 45 W Nm DDR2-667 SPARTA Athlon 64
    3000+ ? 1 1.8 GHz 0.5 MB 1000 MHz 62W 90nm DDR2 Orleans Athlon 64
    2850e ? 1 1.8GHz 512kHz 1000MHz 22W 65nm DDR2 6
    Sempron
    3400+ ? 1 1.8GHz 256kHz 800MHz 62/35W 90nm Manila 9054 DDR20056
    Sempron
    3200+ ? 1 1.8GHz 128kHz 800MHz 62/35W 90nm DDR2 6

    DDR2 6
    Athlon 64
    2650e ? 1 1.6GHz 512kHz 1000MHz 15W 65nm DDR2 6
    Athlon 64
    2600+ ? 1 1. 6 GHz 512 kb 1000 MHz 15 W 65 nm

    9006 9
    Sempron
    3000+ ? 1 1.6 GHz 256 KB 800 MHz 62/35 W DDR2-667 Manila Sempron
    2800+ ? 1 1.6 GHz 128 KB 800MHz 62W 90nm DDR2-667 Manila Athlon 64
    2000+ ? 1 1GHz 512kHz 1000MHz 9W 65nm DDR2-400 6 9005 9005 6

    AM2+AMD

    processors

    Best Socket AM2 Processors

    Best Socket AM2 Processors

    Before AMD’s Ryzen entered the world’s processor market, and AM3 and AM3+ socket platforms began to be produced, these processors were very famous and were in great demand among many people. Currently, these processors can be found on the secondary market at the most affordable cost.

    All of these processors support DDR2 memory up to 800 MHz. The price of processors is given at the time of their release, now they can be found on various sites much cheaper.

    AMD Phenom X4 9850

    A good option for old game fans, it will fit many systems with AM2 motherboard. Also, this processor is perfect for servers and workstations. The model belongs to the Black Edition series, therefore it has a free multiplier and supports overclocking. It has a rather low critical temperature for processors of this series.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2+;
    • Clock frequency: 2.5 GHz;
    • Cores: 4;
    • L3 cache size: 2048 KB;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: around $20.

    AMD Phenom X4 9750

    This processor model is an older version of the previous one. It also has a higher clock speed. The number of cores is the same.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2+;
    • Clock frequency: 2.4 GHz;
    • Cores: 4;
    • L3 cache size: 2048 KB;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $20.

    AMD Phenom X4 9650

    This is almost a top processor at the time of release, which is quite subject to overclocking. At a single core voltage of 1.296 volts. The processor is able to quickly and effortlessly accelerate to 3 GHz and at this frequency it easily passes all the tests. However, it does get quite hot.

    The clock speed is slightly lower than the previous model. It is also worth considering its critical temperature of 62 degrees Celsius.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2+;
    • Clock frequency: 2. 3 GHz;
    • Cores: 4;
    • L3 cache size: 2048 KB;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Heat dissipation: 95 W;
    • Price: $90.

    AMD Phenom X4 9950

    The processor has a higher frequency than all previous models and runs on 4 cores. Like all other processor models on the list, it is installed in the AM2 socket, and which all supports only DDR2 RAM.

    Features:

    • Connector: AM2+;
    • Number of cores: 4;
    • Frequency: 2.6 GHz;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • L3 cache: 2 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $60.

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+

    Proven high clocked dual core processor. It can also be overclocked a bit. Like other processors in this list, the model supports dual-channel DDR2 memory. The maximum amount of RAM for this model is 16 GB.

    • Connector: AM2;
    • Cores: 2;
    • Frequency: 3 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 2 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $70.

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+

    This is a fairly strong processor for its age. In fact, this model symbolizes what AMD was like in one of its best periods of development when fighting Intel, since the products of these manufacturers have almost leveled off in all respects, and even more so in terms of performance.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 2;
    • Processor frequency: 3 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 1 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 75W;
    • Price: $50.

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+

    A solid mid-ranger of its time. This model is suitable for servers and workstations. In terms of cost, it has many analogues among processors from Intel. DDR2 RAM supported. The maximum amount of memory is 16 gigabytes.

    • Socket: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 2;
    • Frequency: 2.8 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 2 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 89 W;
    • Price: $50.

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+

    The processor showed itself well in the test with games and at the same time requires quite high-quality cooling, because even without overclocking to full power its power consumption reaches 65 watts. An efficient cooler will be required to work with heavy video and modern games.

    • Socket: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 2;
    • Frequency: 2. 6 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 512 KB;
    • Heat dissipation: 65W;
    • Price: $50.

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX-62

    The AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX processor released by AMD, despite the name, has nothing to do with the FX line. It is an improved version of the Athlon 64 X2. The Athlon 64 X2 has two cores with 1MB L2 cache and runs at 2400 MHz, while the new Athlon 64 X2 FX has the same number of cores running at 2700 MHz.

    • Connector: AM2;
    • Cores: 2;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • Frequency: 2700 MHz;
    • L2 cache: 1024 KB;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $60.

    AMD Opteron 1356

    Quad-core processor introduced by AMD in 2008. He managed to earn recognition all over the world. Suitable for installation in server stations and similar systems.

    • Connector: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 4;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Frequency: 2.3 GHz;
    • L3 cache: 2 mb;
    • Heat dissipation: 115W;
    • Price: $90.

    A note about AMD

    The most budget line is called «Sempron». With each new generation, performance increases, but still these are the weakest processors. Recommended only for working with office documents, surfing the Internet, watching videos and music.

    The company has a series of FX — these are obsolete top-end chips for the AM3 + platform. Everyone has an unlocked multiplier, i.e. they are easy to overclock (if necessary). There are 4, 6 and 8 core models. Supports automatic overclocking technology — Turbo Core. Only DDR3 memory works. It is better when the platform works with DDR4.

    There are also mid-range products — Athlon X4 and a line of hybrid processors (with integrated graphics) A4/A6/A8/A10/A12. This is for FM2/FM2+/AM4 platforms. A-series is divided into 2 and 4 cores. The power of integrated graphics is higher in older models. If the name has the letter “K” at the end, then this model comes with an unlocked multiplier, i.e. easier to overclock. Supported by Turbo Core. It makes sense to take something from the A-series, only on the condition that there will be no separate video card.

    For socket AM4, the newest processors are the Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 series. They are positioned as competitors to Intel Core i3, i5, i7. There are without integrated graphics and with it, then the letter G will be in the model name, for example AMD Ryzen A5 2400G. The top-end line with 8-16 core processors is AMD Ryzen Threadripper with a massive cooling system.

    Conclusions

    In this article, we were able to review and evaluate the most advanced supported am2 processors. You most likely will not be able to purchase these processors in the primary market, but you can do this by looking for ads for sale on some site on the Internet.

    These socket AM2 processors were very famous and in great demand at the time. Particularly due to the great opportunity to install processors for AM2 in new generation motherboards with faster RAM. What processors of this generation did you use? Which ones are the best? Write in the comments!

    Related posts:

    No related photos.

    Rate the article:

    ( 11 ratings, average: 4.36 of 5)

    Tweet PIN IT

    On the author

    Manager2

    1. Vlad 11.06.2019 Reply
      AMD Phenom II X4 945 You can put in AM2 Mother
    • Sergey 06.12.2019 Reply

      You did not hit your head? 945 hairdryer 2 is am3

    • Vlad 10/10/2020 Reply

      I didn’t succeed.

    • Dmitry 01/23/2021 Reply0002 Am3 processors will go to these boards only if they have AM2 + support, not in any way on a mother with a simple AM2 socket Useful question

    Note about Intel

    The LGA1151 platform includes a complete set of models, listed in ascending order of performance: Celeron, Pentium, Core i3/i5/i7. There are economical processors, they have the letters «T» or «S» in their name. They are slower and I see no reason to put them on home computers unless there is a special need, for example for a home file storage / media center. DDR4 memory is supported, embedded video is everywhere.

    The most budgetary dual-core processors with integrated graphics are Celeron, AMD’s analogue of Sempron, and more. For domestic needs, it is better to install at least a Pentium.

    Top LGA2066 for Skylake and Kabylake with i5/i7 and top i9 series processors. They work with DDR4 memory, have 4-18 cores on board and no integrated graphics. Unlocked multiplier.

    Info:

    • Core i5 and i7 processors support Turbo Boost
    • processors on the Kaby Lake socket are not always faster than their Sky Lake predecessors. The difference in architecture can be offset by different clock speeds. As a rule, a faster processor costs a little more, even if it is Sky Lake. But Skylake accelerates well.
    • processors with integrated Iris Pro graphics are suitable for quiet gaming builds, but they are quite expensive a maximum of 16 PCI Express lanes are supported. For a complete separation, you need an LGA2011-v3 or LGA2066 socket and the corresponding pebbles.
    • The Xeon line is designed for servers.

    AMD Ryzen 5 3500

    The next generation of processors is not designed for multi-threaded data processing, so only gamers should purchase such stones. Yes, in most games the difference between six or twelve streams is minimal or non-existent, but in some titles it can be up to 15%.

    Series Ryzen 5
    Codename
    Test Passmark CPU Mark 12773 points (OV)
    IGP LAVE

    LEASTS OF THE STRICTIONS OF THE STRICTIONA China, Russia and some countries of Eastern Europe, where demand is mainly shifted towards low-cost components. The more modern microarchitecture allows the Ryzen 5 3500 to outperform the Zen+ solution in most games. And if you remember about the rather modest price, it becomes clear why gamers love this processor so much.

    Which is better AMD or Intel?

    This is an eternal dispute, to which thousands of pages of forums on the Internet are devoted, and there is no definite answer to it. Both companies follow each other, but for myself I made a choice which is better. In a nutshell, AMD produces optimal budget solutions, while Intel produces more technologically advanced and expensive products. AMD rules in the low-end sector, but this company simply has no analogues to the fastest Intel processors.

    Processors don’t break like monitors or hard drives, so reliability is not an issue here. That is, if you do not overclock the “stone” and use a fan no worse than a boxed (complete) one, then any processor will last for many, many years. There are no bad models, but there is a feasibility of buying depending on the price, characteristics and other factors, such as the availability of a particular motherboard.

    For reference, I provide a summary table of approximate performance in games of Intel and AMD processors on a powerful GeForce GTX1080 video card, the higher -> the better:

    Comparison of processors in tasks. close to everyday, normal load:

    Archiving in 7-zip (less time — better result):

    To compare different processors on your own, I suggest using tables. So, let’s move from verbosity to specific recommendations.

    Processors starting at $400

    If we talk about the best model in this price range, it is worth highlighting the Intel Core i7-8700K for the Intel LGA 1151 platform. This processor is the best for both nominal use and overclocking, as well as great for top games at high settings, with an appropriate video card. Its antipode is AMD Ryzen 7 products.

    If you can afford to spend more on a «stone», the choice here is clear — an Intel Core i7-7820X processor for an LGA 2066 socket. For an adequate price, you will get fast 8 cores, but without a built-in charts. Yes, I think who takes such a smart guy and thinks to work on an integrated

    Socket am2 940 best processor

    AMD is currently going through some pretty good times in its life. However, before the release of Phenom processors, things were a little different. These processors on the am2 socket are notable for their low price, since they were designed and released many years ago.

    Below is a list of some of the best processors with descriptions on the old am2 socket. Yes, in those days these were the best models with a fast socket. The average clock frequency of workhorses of those years is 2-3 GHz.

    Best CPUs for Socket AM2

    Before AMD’s Ryzen entered the world’s CPU market, and before the AM3 and AM3+ socket platforms began to be produced, these processors were very famous and in great demand among many people. Currently, these processors can be found on the secondary market at the most affordable cost.

    All these processors support DDR2 memory up to 800 MHz. The price of processors is given at the time of their release, now they can be found on various sites much cheaper.

    1. AMD Phenom X4 9850

    A good option for old game fans, it will fit many systems with AM2 motherboard. Also, this processor is perfect for servers and workstations. The model belongs to the Black Edition series, therefore it has a free multiplier and supports overclocking. It has a rather low critical temperature for processors of this series.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2+;
    • Clock frequency: 2.5 GHz;
    • Cores: 4;
    • L3 cache size: 2048 KB;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: around $20.

    2. AMD Phenom X4 9750

    This processor model is an older version of the previous one. It also has a higher clock speed. The number of cores is the same.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2+;
    • Clock frequency: 2.4 GHz;
    • Cores: 4;
    • L3 cache size: 2048 KB;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $20.

    3. AMD Phenom X4 9650

    This is almost a top processor at the time of release, which is quite subject to overclocking. At a single core voltage of 1.296 volts. The processor is able to quickly and effortlessly accelerate to 3 GHz and at this frequency it easily passes all the tests. However, it does get quite hot.

    The clock speed is slightly lower than the previous model. It is also worth considering its critical temperature of 62 degrees Celsius.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2+;
    • Clock frequency: 2. 3 GHz;
    • Cores: 4;
    • L3 cache size: 2048 KB;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Heat dissipation: 95 W;
    • Price: $90.

    4. AMD Phenom X4 9950

    The processor has a higher frequency than all previous models and runs on 4 cores. Like all other processor models on the list, it is installed in the AM2 socket, and which all supports only DDR2 RAM.

    Features:

    • Connector: AM2+;
    • Number of cores: 4;
    • Frequency: 2.6 GHz;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • L3 cache: 2 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $60.

    5. AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+

    Proven high clocked dual core processor. It can also be overclocked a bit. Like other processors in this list, the model supports dual-channel DDR2 memory. The maximum amount of RAM for this model is 16 GB.

    • Connector: AM2;
    • Cores: 2;
    • Frequency: 3 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 2 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $70.

    6. AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+

    This is a pretty strong processor for its age. In fact, this model symbolizes what AMD was like in one of its best periods of development when fighting Intel, since the products of these manufacturers have almost leveled off in all respects, and even more so in terms of performance.

    Features:

    • Socket: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 2;
    • Processor frequency: 3 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 1 Mb;
    • Heat dissipation: 75 W;
    • Price: $50.

    7. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+

    A solid mid-ranger of its time. This model is suitable for servers and workstations. In terms of cost, it has many analogues among processors from Intel. DDR2 RAM supported. The maximum amount of memory is 16 gigabytes.

    • Socket: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 2;
    • Frequency: 2.8 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 2 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 89 W;
    • Price: $50.

    8. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+

    The processor showed itself well in the test with games and at the same time requires quite high-quality cooling, since even without overclocking to full power its power consumption reaches 65 W. An efficient cooler will be required to work with heavy video and modern games.

    • Socket: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 2;
    • Frequency: 2. 6 GHz;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • L2 cache: 512 KB;
    • Heat dissipation: 65 W;
    • Price: $50.

    9. AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX-62

    The AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX processor released by AMD, despite the name, has nothing to do with the FX line. It is an improved version of the Athlon 64 X2. The Athlon 64 X2 has two cores with 1MB L2 cache and runs at 2400 MHz, while the new Athlon 64 X2 FX has the same number of cores running at 2700 MHz.

    • Connector: AM2;
    • Cores: 2;
    • Process: 90 nm;
    • Frequency: 2700 MHz;
    • L2 cache: 1024 KB;
    • Heat dissipation: 125W;
    • Price: $60.

    10. AMD Opteron 1356

    Quad-core processor introduced by AMD in 2008. He managed to earn recognition all over the world. Suitable for installation in server stations and similar systems.

    • Connector: AM2;
    • Number of cores: 4;
    • Process: 65 nm;
    • Frequency: 2.3 GHz;
    • L3 cache: 2 MB;
    • Heat dissipation: 115 W;
    • Price: $90.

    Conclusions

    In this article, we were able to review and evaluate the most advanced supported am2 processors. You most likely will not be able to purchase these processors in the primary market, but you can do this by looking for ads for sale on some site on the Internet.

    These socket AM2 processors were very famous and in great demand at the time. Particularly due to the great opportunity to install processors for AM2 in new generation motherboards with faster RAM. What processors of this generation did you use? Which ones are the best? Write in the comments!

    More than 10 years have passed since the release of Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+, so users of computers based on this platform are increasingly thinking about upgrading the processor. Fortunately, quite a few good processors have been released for this platform, which show good results even by modern standards. In this article, we will talk about what Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+ are, what processors they support, and how to choose the right ones.

    Overview of Socket AM2 and AM2+

    What Socket AM2 looks like on a motherboard.

    Socket AM2 (also known as Socket M2) is a processor socket from AMD. This connector was introduced in 2006 and replaced the outdated 939 and 754 sockets. Socket AM2 received 940 pins and support for DDR2 RAM.

    The first processors to be released for socket AM2 are the Athlon 64 (Orleans) and Sempron (Manila) single-core processors, and the Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon 64 FX (Windsor) dual-core processors. Socket AM2 became part of the AMD platform, which also included Socket F for servers, as well as Socket S1 for mobile devices.

    Socket AM2+ is the successor to Socket AM2 and a transitional step before the introduction of Socket AM3. Socket AM2+ is physically the same as Socket AM2, so the new processors that were released for AM2+ can be used on older AM2 motherboards. But, of course, this requires updating the BIOS of the motherboard, without which the new processor will not work on the old board. In addition, old processors that were released for AM2 will work on new boards with AM2 +. In this case, most often no BIOS update is required.

    The main difference between socket AM2+ and AM2 is the introduction of a new version of the HyperTransport 3.0 bus, which can operate at frequencies up to 2.6 GHz. Therefore, when installing an AM2+ processor into an old motherboard with AM2, the user loses support for the new version of the HyperTransport bus. With this configuration, the processor will run using HyperTransport 2.0 or even HyperTransport 1.0.

    It should also be noted that Socket AM3 processors can be used on motherboards with Socket AM2+. Such support is possible due to the fact that AM3 processors have a DDR2 and DDR3 memory controller. Therefore, when an AM3 processor is installed in an AM2+ board, such a processor can switch to work with DDR2. As in the previous described case, such work is possible only after updating the BIOS of the motherboard.

    Processor selection for AM2 and AM2+

    When selecting a processor, always refer to the list of processors supported by your motherboard. This rule is especially true for AM2 and AM2+ sockets, for which many different processors have been released.

    So, in order to find a list of supported processors, you need to know the exact name of your motherboard. You can find out this name using any program that shows the characteristics of a computer. For example, you can use the free program CPU-Z. By running this program on your computer and going to the “Mainboard” tab, you can find out the name of the model and manufacturer of the motherboard.

    Now that you know the name of the motherboard, you can start looking for a list of supported processors. Such a list is always available on the official website of the board manufacturer. In order to find this list, enter the name of the motherboard into the search engine and go to the page of your board on the official website of the manufacturer.

    This will take you to a page with information about your motherboard. On this page, you need to find a section with a list of processors. Usually, in order to find this section, you need to go to the link «Support — CPU» or «Support — List of processors». By opening this section, you will receive a comprehensive list of processors that can be installed on your board. In this case, next to each processor, the BIOS version that must be installed in order for this processor to work will be indicated.

    If you are interested in a complete list of processors that were released for Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+, then we provide such a list in this article. Using our list, you can find out what processors were generally produced for these sockets.

    Everything I do at work: computers, automation, controllers, programming, etc.

    Monday, September 5, 2016

    Processor upgrade on socket AM2 motherboard

    You may have bought a computer in the year 2006-2008. A lot of time has passed since then, technology has gone ahead and your computer can no longer cope — it works slowly, online video slows down, etc. So it’s true, but it’s too early to throw out such a computer — you can just change the processor and the computer will gain a second youth, it will work like a modern one. Almost.

    If the computer was purchased in the specified time range, then most likely it is designed for a processor for socket 775 or AM2.
    I already wrote about the 775 here: comp-man.info/2015/09/upgrade-cpu-socket-775.html

    Upgrading to a newer processor (upgrade) on an AM2 socket motherboard is just as easy.

    1. Determining the processor and socket of your motherboard

    To unambiguously determine the socket of your motherboard, you need to run the Aida64 v1. 6 or higher program. There, in the «motherboard» section, the socket type is shown:

    Hereinafter, the performance of the processors is taken from the site cpubenchmark.net. 387 points, is it a lot or a little? Not only that, the AM2 upgrade experience shows that you can work so-so on an Athlon64 4200+ processor (1285 points) and quite comfortably on an Athlon64 5400+ processor (1453 points).

    2. Purpose of socket AM2 processor upgrade

  • Chrome browser with 10-15 simultaneously open pages, incl. from online video.
  • View AVI and DVD video files from a computer.
  • Work in Word and Excel 2010 with background playback of sound, video, incl. and from the internet.
  • Skype.
  • Avast antivirus or similar

There will open a list of processors that can be installed in our MP.

You can search for a list of processors for MP in a very simple way — type in Google the request cpu support, one of the top links will lead to the official website with a list of supported processors.
For example, to determine the processors supported by the Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe/Wireless Edition MP, you need to drive the following query into Google

As I said, an Athlon64 4200+ processor is enough for «so-so work», for comfortable work you need to install at least Athlon64 5400+. Their performance is 1285 and 1453 points, respectively.
The higher the processor performance, the faster the computer will run.

testing processors of past years on the Socket AM2 board in modern games

This material was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.

Instead of a preface: a few words about the computer industry

I think it’s no secret to anyone that the computer industry is developing extremely unevenly : serious periodic “shakes”, when the capabilities of hardware and software make a certain qualitative leap , are accompanied by long periods of “stagnation”, which are already characterized by predominantly quantitative changes. If we talk about central processors for desktop computers, then, by and large, the last indisputably qualitative leap in technology occurred about 15 years ago (in the mid-2000s) and was associated with the emergence and widespread introduction of the 64-bit extension of the x86 architecture, and then and multi-core processors based on this architecture. Progress, of course, has not stopped since then, but the changes in the processor part that have occurred in subsequent years can hardly be called as revolutionary as those mentioned above.

Of course, year by year, due to the improvement of the microarchitecture of processors, the number of instructions executed by them per clock increased, in addition, new functional blocks and corresponding sets of instructions appeared, which significantly increased performance in some specific tasks. The number of cores also increased (from 2–4 to 4–8), the clock frequencies of multi-core chips grew (from 2–3 to 3–4 GHz), and the speed of data exchange between the processor and RAM, as well as between the processor cores, increased. All these quantitative changes, of course, make an impression, and the «cumulative effect» of them at a distance of more than 10 years is perfectly noticeable, but a real technological «breakthrough», as in the mid-2000s, is still not felt. . And in connection with this feeling of a certain “stagnation”, the question arises: what will the “old men” from the second half of the 2000s be able to do in modern realities, if they can do anything at all?

Briefly about Socket AM2, AM2+, AM3, AM3+

We will start, as it should be clear from the title of the note, with AMD chips, which since the mid-2000s has released a large number of 2-, 3-, 4- and even 6-core processors of various lines for many processor sockets: Socket 939, Socket AM2, Socket AM2+, Socket AM3, Socket AM3+, and so on. Processors for the first of these sockets (Socket 939) will not be considered due to the general archaism of the platform: support for a maximum of dual-core processors and only the first generation DDR memory. Let’s talk about the other connectors in a little more detail:

  • recommendations

    AM2 is a socket for AMD desktop processors with dual-channel DDR2 memory.

  • AM2+ is an upgraded version of AM2, featuring support for DDR2-1066 and HyperTransport 3.0 bus up to 2.6 GHz, as well as improved power circuits (separate power rails for the processor cores and the integrated memory controller, allowing you to adjust the power consumption of these components independently of each other) .

  • AM3 is a development of AM2+, the main difference of which is support for DDR3 memory.

  • AM3+ — AM3 modification for Bulldozer and Piledriver microarchitecture processors.

To understand the compatibility of processors and motherboards on the indicated sockets, the following table will be useful.

In terms of actual compatibility, the following should be said:

  • -memory of the required generation. So, for example, AM2 processors work fine in all AM2+ boards, and the same can be said about the work of AM3 processors in AM3+ boards, but AM2 and AM2+ processors in AM3 and AM3+ boards cannot work due to the lack of a DDR3 controller in these processors. memory. True, there are hybrid AM2+/AM3 boards that have slots for both DDR2 and DDR3 memory — naturally, processors will work in such AM2 and AM2+ boards, but only with DDR2 memory.

  • With backward compatibility, the situation is more complicated: for the functioning of «new» processors in «old» motherboards, in addition to physical and electrical compatibility, which exists between the connectors under discussion, in many cases it is also necessary to have support for processors of the new microarchitecture at the logical level, for which from the manufacturer of the «old» boards needed to add support for the «new» processors in the BIOS. And this was done by far not by all board manufacturers, not for all models of boards and processors, and not without nuances, so it is better to check compatibility in each specific case on the board manufacturer’s website or on CPU-Upgrade.

  • Even if the «new» processor is compatible with the «old» board, many of the innovations of the more current platform on the «old» board will not be available. So, for example, not all, albeit many, AM2 boards support AM2+ processors. However, many features of the AM2+ platform will not be available:

    • The HyperTransport bus frequency will be limited to 1.0 GHz, which, however, does not lead to any noticeable drop in performance on single-socket desktop systems.

    • Energy-saving technologies based on the aforementioned separation of the power phases of the processor and memory controller cores, of course, will not work.

    • In addition, overclocking options will often be limited, for example, it will not be possible to change the voltage on the AM2 + processor core and the frequency of the integrated memory controller.

Processor and motherboard compatibility chart for sockets AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3+. Symbols: + compatible, ● theoretically compatible, — not compatible. Source and full version of the table.

Summing up, we see that the «dance» certainly follows from the motherboard available, so it makes sense to separately consider options for Socket AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3+ motherboards. And in this note we will talk about the first of these connectors.

AMD K10 multi-core processors

Microarchitecture comparison of the first 2-core (K8) and 4-core (K10) AMD processors.
Gray in K10 highlights blocks that were missing in K8.

I think it will not come as a revelation to anyone that 4-threaded processors are currently the absolute minimum for at least somewhat comfortable work and games, and since the technology of simultaneous multithreading (Simultaneous Multithreading, SMT) AMD processors of those years did not use, then we begin our consideration immediately with 4-core processors of the company, the first of which were based on the K10 microarchitecture, the innovations of which were:

  • Combining up to 4 (and later 6) cores on one chip.

  • Presence of a common L3 cache for all cores.

  • HyperTransport 3.0 bus support up to 2.6 GHz.

  • Support for DDR2-1066 (Socket AM2+) and later DDR3-1333 (Socket AM3) memory.

  • SSE4a instruction set.

  • Various improvements to the execution units and the cache subsystem.

  • Support for separate power rails for CPU cores and integrated memory controller.

  • Supports a range of new power and heat reduction technologies.

Let’s move on to a brief overview of the main lines of AMD processors of the K10 microarchitecture. AMD placed all 4 cores on one chip and equipped them with a common L3 cache, releasing at the end of 2007, in fact, the first «real» 4-core x86 processor. But despite the generally advanced architecture, AMD’s first 4-core “pancake” turned out to be “lumpy”: long delays in entering the market due to almost simultaneous changes in the microarchitecture and technical process, unimpressive performance compared to the competitor in the face of Core 2 Quad , an error in the TLB block in revision B2 processors — in general, there was no shortage of nails in the Phenom X4 coffin lid, and only a seriously adjusted pricing policy saved the first 4-core AMD chips.

Phenom II X4 (Deneb) and Athlon II X4 (Propus)

Although the first-generation Phenom processors were eventually well received by the market due to their very affordable prices, it was obvious that the potential of the K10 microarchitecture was revealed in them far not entirely predominantly due to problems reaching frequencies above 2.5 GHz while maintaining an economically viable yield of usable 65 nm crystals. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that AMD continued to improve its 4-core chips, releasing the second generation of Phenom processors in early 2009.of the year. In addition to the transition to a 45-nm process technology, which finally made it possible to raise frequencies to 3 GHz and higher, one of the immediately noticeable changes is also a threefold increase in the volume of the L3 cache. In addition, the new implementation of the K10 microarchitecture contained some improvements that allowed a slight increase in IPC, and with the release of the Socket AM3 Phenom II platform, they also got support for faster DDR3-1333 memory.

And we should give AMD its due, the potential of the K10 microarchitecture in Phenom II was unequivocally revealed — in terms of frequency, power consumption, performance and overclocking potential, the company made a big step forward. In addition, despite the obvious technological successes, AMD has not been greedy and set more than adequate prices for its new products. Add to this the preservation of mechanical, electrical and (partially) logical compatibility of Socket AM2, AM2+ and AM3 connectors, and you will understand why the success of the new Phenom was a foregone conclusion.

In addition to 4-core Phenom II based on Deneb chips, the second generation K10 introduced 4-core Athlon II based on Propus chips, which differed from Deneb chips only in a «cut off» L3 cache. The elimination of the L3 cache, which occupied a third of the die area in Phenom II, made it possible to significantly reduce the cost of production, so that Athlon II X4 processors cost one and a half to two times cheaper than Phenom II X4. True, for the implementation of partially defective Deneb chips, individual batches of Athlon II X4 processors were still based on Deneb chips with a logically disabled, and not physically «cut off» L3 cache, but for the purposes of this study, this is all insignificant. But what is significant is the fact that at a much lower cost, the Athlon II X4 was only 10-15% behind the equal-frequency Phenom II X4 in terms of performance!

3- and 2-core «cuts»

Since we are talking, albeit in passing, about disabling the L3 cache in the Phenom II X4, it will not be out of place to mention that both the first and second generation have 4 -core AMD processors also had 3- and 2-core «trimmings», produced under various names (Phenom X3, Phenom II X3, Athlon II X3, Phenom II X2, Athlon II X2). In general, this whole story with disabling the cache and cores has been going on since the production of the very first 2-core AMD chips, when the company faced a significant number of defects, in order to reduce costs from which on finished products it was necessary to disable either one core or part of the blocks L2 cache. Moreover, the second method was more efficient, since already at that time more than half of the transistors in the chips were part of the cache memory, and if defects did occur, then most likely it was in the cache memory blocks. Over time, of course, the percentage of yield of suitable 2-core crystals increased, but the transition to the production of 4-core crystals, and then also on a finer technical process, was again accompanied by an increase in the number of defective crystals. Fortunately, the ability to disable cores and cache memory (now, however, L3) has not disappeared and still remained a quite effective way to reduce costs.

We are not interested in 2- and even 3-core models, since a priori they do not have sufficient performance for modern games. A short test of 2-, 3- and 4-core AMD processors of those years in modern game projects confirms this statement:

  • «.
  • The situation with 3-core processors is slightly better — most of the games here can at least be launched, but there is still no question of playability.
  • 4-core processors are already capable of producing at least some acceptable average frame rate at least at the minimum settings.

The only thing worth adding here, perhaps, is that in the era of the seventh generation of game consoles, the most effective solution in games was precisely 3-, not 4-core processors, since the Xbox 360 was equipped with a 3-core processor , and most games, being multi-platform projects, have not been optimized for a larger number of cores. With the release of the eighth generation of consoles equipped with 8-core processors, the situation began to change and at the moment most games benefit significantly from the presence of the fourth core.

Phenom II X6 (Thuban)

times will not be considered, since the motherboard we have at our disposal for Socket AM2 does not support 6-core Phenom II X6. To be honest, I can hardly remember even some top-end AM2 board with support for 6-core Phenom II, and here everything is generally cheaper than anywhere else. And the price of Phenom II X6 on the secondary market still leaves them in another league — most of the 4-core Phenom and Athlon cost around 1000 ₽, and the price tag for 6-core Phenom II X6 starts from 2500 ₽. But the next time we look at Socket AM2+ Phenom II X6, perhaps there will be. At least «in stock», since there is no certainty about the ability of the old GA-MA770-UD3 to overclock the available 125 W Phenom II X6 (and at the same time stay alive).

The agony of choice

After a short review of the processor lines we are interested in, let’s move on to choosing processors for testing. The main, and in fact the only, criterion for choosing (and subsequently evaluating) a processor will, of course, be specific performance per watt-ruble , that is, we are not interested in the most productive processors, but solutions that are best in terms of performance / price energy consumption”, which in the vast majority of cases are mid-segment processors . Here you need to understand that the highest models of any processor line usually consume more power and generate more heat than mid-range models, which incurs additional costs not only for paying electricity bills, but often for the motherboard, power supply and system. cooling, but the performance gain in absolute numbers for the processors of the last decade will now turn out to be quite insignificant.

Let me explain in a little more detail: older models of a processor line usually outperform their “middle” brothers by only a couple of tens of percent due to a higher frequency. And here you need to understand that for current processors, a relative advantage of a couple of tens of percent will result in a good absolute increase in performance in modern applications and games, but for processors of past years in absolute terms, the increase is likely to be insignificant. For example, an increase of 20% from, say, 50 average FPS will be quite an impressive 10 FPS, bringing the indicator very close to the desired 60, and the same increase of 20% to 20 FPS will only be 4 FPS, unable to “pull up” this indicator. even to the threshold of conditional playability. In addition, we must take into account the fact that the demand for expensive top models is obviously always much less and, as a result, they are also manufactured much less, so the availability of top processors in the primary market is not high, let alone the “secondary” and there is nothing to say — single lots at exorbitant prices.

So, we have a simple Jetway M26GTC motherboard based on the NVIDIA nForce 520 chipset with a weak 3-phase CPU power system, two DDR2 slots (supporting a maximum of DDR2-800) and one PCIe x16 slot. What processors can we put on the existing motherboard?

  • First, obviously, any Socket AM2 motherboard supports processors made for this processor socket, however, there are no 4-core models among them.
  • Secondly, a large number of Socket AM2 boards, including ours, support Socket AM2+ processors, of which we are only interested in full-fledged 4-core Phenom X4 (Agena) processors.

  • And thirdly, some AM2 boards also support Socket AM3 processors, of which we are primarily interested in the 4-core Phenom II X4 (Deneb) and Athlon II X4 (Propus).

  • We will not play the lottery with unlocking the cores and cache either, since the article is not about that at all, and given the current prices, it doesn’t make much sense anymore.

Comparative characteristics of AMD Socket AM2+/AM3 4-core processors

then the lines. Of course, first of all, you need to turn to the official CPU Support List, but in the case of our board, it is not really a help to us — despite the fact that the board supports AM3 processors, which is proudly announced on the official website, there is not a single one in the mentioned list of supported processors. that of models made for Socket AM3, but even for Socket AM2+. Apparently, they simply forgot to update the list of supported processors, since in another corner of the official website of the motherboard manufacturer, we managed to find a more detailed plate, in which some of the processors made for Socket AM2 + / AM3 are already declared as supported (after updating the BIOS of the motherboard to the latest version). However, there is a discrepancy: in the discovered table, only models with TDP not higher than 65 W are declared as supported, while 89 are also included in the list of supported processors.-watt Athlon 64 X2 (Windsor).

Of course, TDP is such a measure of power consumption, but, for example, the 65nm quad-core Phenom X4 9600 really consumes as much as the 2-core Athlon 64 X2 (Windsor), namely 94W. Of course, the operating voltage of the 65nm Phenom X4 is slightly lower than that of the 90nm 2-core chips (1.2 V vs 1.3), but this is just an additional 5 A load on the power supply system (78 A vs 72 A), which distributed over three phases, so there should be no problems. In addition, if we study the VRM of the motherboard, we see that each phase includes APM2510N (high-side) and APM2556N (low-side) mosfets, which, even at case temperatures of 100 ° C, are capable of operating with currents up to 35 A and 48 Ah, respectively. Well, since we have 3 phases, even in the indicated temperature regime, the VRM must cope with currents up to at least 3 35 A = 105 A (although, here, it would probably be more logical to count by low-side mosfets, since how at each particular moment of time the high-side mosfets of only one phase are open, while in all other phases the low-side mosfets are open, but that’s not the point). It is clear that in practice it is better to be significantly lower than the indicated values, but 78 A is quite below 105 A, and, at least, on an open stand with a 120 mm turntable blowing on the VRM, the mosfet cases did not heat up so much — the finger endured quietly for a few seconds, which means that it was still far from 100 ° C.

But this is all, of course, on an open stand with additional airflow, and in game (albeit many hours) benchmarks. However, it should be noted that when used with a 95-watt Athlon X2 7550, in a spacious, albeit not very ventilated case, there were no problems over the years, however, running serious stress tests a la OCCT in a closed (and even and, God forbid, a poorly ventilated) case, of course, is not recommended — in such conditions, all the theoretical calculations and estimates made above can easily «go through the forest», or, more precisely, by fire. It can be assumed that the Taiwanese, having designated processor models with a TDP of more than 65 W as Over Spec. in the above table, were reinsured just from such extreme usage scenarios. We, acting only partly at our own peril and risk, processors with a thermal pack of 95 W is acceptable for participation in testing and we will immediately notice that there were no problems with them on an open stand. Well, I would skip the 125-Watt and 140-Watt “stoves” in any case, since their price and power consumption in comparison with the 95-Watt “middle peasants” look inadequate and are not justified by only slightly higher frequencies.

We are looking for processors on Aliexpress, eBay, Avito, giving preference to “middle peasants” in each line for the reason announced earlier. Pricing in the secondary market is extremely chaotic — prices depend on demand and the number of offers, the decency of the seller, the phase of the moon and other factors. The detailed tables of processors in the English-language Wikipedia, namely, the list of Phenom microprocessors, turned out to be very useful when choosing. We look at the list of first generation Phenom and:

  • Skip the problem revision B2 processors.
  • If TDP is limited to 65 W, then we choose among low-frequency energy-efficient models with the letter «e» at the end. The choice is small, the best offer at the moment is the youngest Phenom X4 9150e (1.8 GHz) for $7, however, due to the ridiculously low frequency, such a processor will fit only for non-gaming applications.
  • The choice among 95W models is much larger, the best offers at the moment — Phenom X4 9550 (2.2 GHz) and 9650 (2.3 GHz) for $9.

Similarly, we go through the list of the second generation of Phenom:

  • We skip the 800-series processors with a «cut down» 4-MB L3 cache, as well as the models «under» Socket AM2 + without a DDR3 controller — in this study, its presence, of course , not important, but it will come in handy later.
  • Of the low-frequency energy-efficient models, the best deal is the 65-watt Phenom II X4 900e (2. 4 GHz) and 905e (2.5 GHz) for $21 and $22, respectively.
  • Of the 95W models, the best choice would be Phenom II X4 925 (2.8GHz) for $15.

And, finally, in the second generation of Athlon:

  • From low-frequency energy efficient models, 45-watt Athlon II X4 600e-615e (2.2-2.5 GHz) for $12-$14 will be a good choice.
  • And the best choice of 95W models is the Athlon II X4 630 (2.8 GHz) and 635 (2.9 GHz) for $7 and $9, respectively.

For the purposes of studying the effect of the presence/absence of the L3 cache on performance, it would be very convenient to have an equal frequency to the selected Phenom II X4 925 is the Athlon II X4 model, so the choice fell on the Athlon II X4 630. And everything would be fine, but the Jetway M26GTC motherboard did not start with this processor, although the Phenom II X4 925 «digested» without any problems. It’s embarrassing, annoying, but okay. Let’s leave the question of the impact of the lack of an L3 cache until the next time. And a few words about overclocking, more precisely, its absence: the processors in this test have a TDP of 95 W, which, generally speaking, is already on the verge both for the motherboard used and for many models of AM2 motherboards in general. In addition, as noted above, AM2 boards very often do not have the ability to increase the voltage of AM2+/AM3 processors, as well as lower the multiplier of the memory controller built into it, which can significantly limit overclocking. Therefore, within the framework of this study, everything will be “in stock”.

Well, we have decided on the processors. Of course, many things can be said without any tests. So, for example, a double overpayment for the L3 cache in Phenom II X4 compared to Athlon II X4 cannot be justified in any way, since the performance gain from the presence of the L3 cache will by no means be doubled. However, it is still interesting to see how this increase will be in modern games, and besides, the selected Athlon II X4 on the Jetway M26GTC did not start anyway, and I would still like to test the representative of the second generation of 4-core processors, so We will leave Phenom II X4 for tests. Let me also remind you that the purpose of testing is to compare processors of previous generations with modern ones. It makes little sense to compare with “gaming” 4 or more core processors of recent years, we need a weaker competitor, so to speak, “semi-gaming”. For example, “hyperstump”, junior Ryzen 3 or modern Athlon, and it would be more interesting, of course, to compare it with AMD chips, but I don’t have them, so the competitor will still be “hotly beloved” by many “hyperstump”, and namely, the Pentium G4600. Note, however, that these AMD processors are about the same performance level as the G4600, with the only exception that due to the presence of 4 cores, Ryzen 3 significantly outperforms 2-core 4-thread competitors in efficiently parallelized computing tasks (archiving, encryption, ray tracing). In general, you can easily find information on these chips, including their direct comparison, on the Internet in bulk.

We basically take the first available motherboard (MSI B250M PRO-VD) for the “hyperstump” and put 2 strips of inexpensive DDR4-2400 memory, 4 GB each. At the moment, 4 GB of memory is hardly enough even for comfortable Internet browsing, so we will focus on 8 GB in dual-channel mode, of course. For our “oldies”, we will also take DDR2-800 memory with two 4 GB sticks for Aliexpress “cheap” — usually these are sticks soldered by the Chinese with DDR2-667 chips, overclocked to DDR2-800. But in this mode, the bars usually work stably only at a slightly increased to 1.9-2.0 In tension, but they still work, and stably. Specifically, in our case, we have strips from the «world famous brand» Atermiter on HYNIX H5PS2G43AFR-Y5 chips, apparently soldered with 8 GB ECC REG of HYNIX HMP31GP7AFR4C-Y5 strips. According to the specification, the chips are designed to work in the DDR2-667 5-5-5 mode, but the SPD also includes the DDR2-800 6-6-6 mode from the “older” chips of the same series (H5PS2G43AFR-S6). At a voltage of 1.9 V in this overclocked mode, the strips work without failures, at a voltage of 2.0 V, we even managed to slightly «squeeze» the timings to 4-5-4, but there is little practical sense in this, since even in synthetic tests the performance gain turned out to be error limits.

The rest of the test bench components are identical: Inno3D’s GeForce GTX 1060 6GB graphics card, 240GB budget WD Green SSD for Windows and applications, 3TB Seagate 7200 BarraCuda HDD for gaming, Xilence Performance A+ 630W PSU, CPU cooler DEEPCOOL GAMMAXX 200T.

Test stand AM2

Test stand LGA1151

Test methodology

So, we are interested in processor performance in, as it is usually said in such cases, “actual games”. Here, however, there are both obvious and not quite obvious nuances.

The issue of “relevance” can, of course, be solved in a simple way, for example, limiting ourselves to only the most recent AAA projects, say, games from the last “five-year plan”, that is, released in 2015–19, since it is unlikely that older projects have now at least some significant popularity. But despite the greater number of actual games, only a small part of them have reliable tools for measuring performance. By «reliable» here is meant a tool that gives the ability to repeat as close game scenes as possible , usually organized through a built-in benchmark, or the ability to “play” a timedemo or cut-scene using the game engine in the game. Compared to testing on random game scenes, such tools provide not only significantly smaller statistical errors, but also the ability to automate the testing process as easily as possible. Of course, built-in gaming benchmarks are not without drawbacks, the main of which is not always a direct correspondence between the performance of a particular system in a benchmark and in a real game. However, there are actually not so many frankly “bad” benchmarks, so for me personally, good reproducibility of results and ease of automation outweigh the disadvantages of having a couple of gaming benchmarks that are not the most successful in the aforementioned sense in the test set.

And if we only select games with one of the above-mentioned performance measurement tools for testing, then there will not be so many of them, about a dozen per year, but over 5 years the number will still be large, and time, as you know, is limited. Therefore, we can discard another part of game projects and here we need to decide on the main goal of the study: what will we actually test — hardware or games? Hardware testing here means finding out some average relative performance of computer systems (or parts thereof) in a certain class of tasks, for example, in games, and game testing means determining the ability of computer systems to produce the required frame rate in various games at various settings . We are dealing here with the first option, that is, we are testing hardware, not games , so we can safely discard another part of game projects: game series created on the same «graphics engine» — it is enough to use one of these projects (preferably the most up-to-date one).

  • It would be nice to have games that also use different graphics APIs, with particular interest being projects implemented using multiple APIs at once.
  • It is desirable to be able to test the performance of a game project for a long time without updating it, as this makes it possible to directly compare the results on the tested platforms with those tested earlier.
  • «Sifting» in this way the list of games of the last 5 years with built-in benchmarks, we get no more than 20 projects, and this number already looks quite «lifting». We note further that we are testing the gaming performance of the processor, not the graphics part, so we would like to create conditions in which the performance of the tested systems would not «rest» on the video card. It should be taken into account that:

    • On the one hand, the use of minimum settings due to the reduction or even complete disabling of some of the gaming and graphics technologies, even if it allows you to offload the video card, but at the same time does not reflect the real possible load on the central processor at any higher settings. Therefore, you should test games at maximum quality settings, that is, settings that load both the video card and the central processor as much as possible, and avoid «emphasis» on the video card, using a fairly powerful graphics accelerator for tests. Unless, at maximum settings, you can definitely disable “heavy” anti-aliasing (MSAA, SSAA), if it is part of them, and lower the resolution to, say, HD (1280×720), since these parameters only load the video card.
    • On the other hand, the tested processors a priori have such low performance that testing at maximum settings in this study will be too out of touch with reality. In addition, at this point in time, from video cards I have at my disposal only an average GeForce GTX 1060 by today’s standards with 6 GB of video memory, which in modern games is at maximum quality settings even with such «weak» processors and even at the minimum for many modern games HD resolution (1280×720) may well become a bottleneck. And lowering the rendering resolution even lower is far from possible in every game, and in the end, you can “rest against”, in the end, not necessarily in pixel shaders, so it’s not a fact that it would help.

    As a result: we are still testing at the minimum settings, being aware that in general this is not the most correct approach, but in this particular case it is as close to reality as possible. And yes, we lower the resolution even at the minimum settings to HD (1280×720) «out of harm’s way.» But let’s start with synthetic benchmarks from the AIDA64 package, which will allow us to determine the relative theoretical performance of processors and the memory subsystem.

    AIDA64

    In memory tests, the K10 results are not impressive even against the backdrop of by no means the most advanced example of modern engineering: the G4600 with DDR4-2400 (18-17-17-39) memory demonstrates three times the read speed, five times faster than «oldies» in terms of recording speed and at the same time demonstrates 40% lower delays. There is certainly progress here.

    The diagrams below show the performance of the tested AMD processors in the CPU and FPU tests relative to those of the Pentium G4600, whose performance is taken as 1 for clarity.

    When the integer algorithms used are well parallelized, do not run into memory performance and gain little from the use of new instructions (primarily from SSE4.x sets), the G4600 breaks away only slightly due to its half the number of computing cores. Particularly indicative in this regard are the results of the performance test of the SHA3 hashing algorithm, where the tested Phenom X4 almost catches up with the «hyperstump», and Phenom II X4 even outperforms it. Of course, not all integer algorithms, even those used in the AIDA64 benchmark, scale so well in terms of the number of computational threads, practically do not run into the performance of the memory subsystem, and gain little from new instructions, so Phenom X4 results in other tests are more modest. Oh yes, in some tasks, new functional blocks that have appeared in processors over the past years, provided that the appropriate new instructions are used, increase performance by an order of magnitude — the results of the AES encryption algorithm performance test are a vivid example of this.

    When calculating with floating point, just like in the case of calculations with integers, Phenom X4 practically catches up with the «hyperstump» in cases where the algorithm is effectively parallelized, «rests» mainly on the counting speed of the processor’s computational units and not greatly accelerated due to new instructions. This time such «successful» tests for the 4-core «old man» were a couple of benchmarks for calculating fractals — Julia and Mandel. In other tests, the results of Phenom X4 are again more modest — somewhere we «rest» on the speed of data exchange between the processor and RAM, somewhere on the non-ideal scalability of the algorithm with an increase in the number of cores, somewhere we fall short due to the lack of support for new instructions.

    It would seem that from the point of view of the practical use of the AM2 platform in a modern software environment, everything does not look so catastrophically bad at all, because in cases where a 4-core Phenom of at least the first generation can be used, in synthetic tests 4 relatively slow «old» » cores show performance of the same order as 2 relatively fast «new» ones. However, when transferring the results of synthetic tests to real applications and games, you need to be extremely careful for at least two reasons.

    • First, in synthetic tests, the situation is usually purposefully exploited when the performance of the entire system depends entirely on the performance of one of its specific nodes. This, of course, is necessary so that you can compare the performance of these individual nodes in completely different systems, but you just need to remember that there are many such nodes, they are interconnected, and in many real tasks the performance of the entire system «rests» on the performance of the slowest of the them. So, for example, no matter how fast the 4-core Phenom performs operations with numbers, if it is necessary to process large arrays of numbers, you can easily «run into» the speed of working with memory, which it does not shine with.
    • Easily and efficiently parallelized tasks are rare in reality. Take the same games — when using the most popular DirectX game programming interface up to its 11th version inclusive, drawing commands from the processor to the video card were sent strictly sequentially and therefore could be formed and sent for execution in only one thread. As a result, in one such thread, tasks were performed that, in terms of computation, often turned out to be significantly «more expensive» than any other tasks performed in other threads of the application, and the performance of the application «rested» on the performance of its single thread. As a result, the load is predominantly single-threaded, and the performance «per core» is primarily important.
    • Of course, more modern APIs, such as DirectX 12 and Vulkan, allow the creation and sending of drawing commands in several threads at once, which makes it possible to use the power of multi-core processors more efficiently, however, the task of synchronizing such threads is entirely assigned to programmers which complicates development. And these APIs have appeared quite recently by the standards of the gaming industry, so there are not so many examples of their successful use yet.

    Therefore, rather than continue to «drive all kinds of synthetics», let’s go directly to the games.

    Game tests

    Grand Theft Auto V (2015, RAGE, DX11)

    The Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE for short) -games, so you shouldn’t have expected any special problems, even despite the use of the DirectX 11 API. And indeed, 4-core Phenoms at the minimum settings can handle GTA V, even if they lag behind by about 50-60% of the «hyperstump» in medium and 1% low FPS. The statistics of 0.1% of low FPS in the case of the G4600 fell victim to the features of the RAGE game «engine», which have already been written about, so we will not focus on this nuance once again.

    Batman: Arkham Knight (2015, Unreal Engine 3, DX11)

    the whole story. When it comes to CPUs, Batman: Arkham Knight is notorious for its extreme dislike of AMD CPUs. The game is based on the Unreal Engine 3 (UE3) as ancient as mammoth dung, which, however, thanks to periodic updates, still had support for many popular graphics technologies of the time, so Batman: Arkham Knight 9 looked like1718 is very good. Another question is that the developers of the PC version could not optimize from the word «completely», which turned out to be death for weak PCs, and it is not at all surprising that the fourth game of the Batman: Arkham series puts tested Phenoms of both generations even at low quality settings «on knees». But «hyperstump» in the same conditions copes without problems.

    Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (2016, Dawn Engine, DX11 and DX12)

    Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is a swarm-based stealth-action game that uses the Dawn Engine, which is a heavily modified version of IO Interactive’s Glacier 2 engine used in the Hitman series of games since Hitman: Absolution. Dawn Engine. And just like Glacier 2, AMD Dawn Engine doesn’t have a special love for AMD processors, so you shouldn’t expect miracles in this test either. However, miracles, in a sense, do take place, and their name is DirectX 12 and the good work of programmers: as you can see, using the DIrectX 12 API allows you to achieve a significantly more stable frame rate on 4-core chips (compared to DirectX 11 ), which is reflected in the charts in a greatly increased 0.1% low FPS. Yes, the average FPS in DirectX 12 mode is slightly lower, but there are no more serious drops in frame rate, as in the case of DrectX 11, and in general, in DirectX 12 mode, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided «at minimum» is playable even on ancient Phenoms . As you can see, using modern APIs can give a tangible advantage even when using 4-core processors. That’s just, looking ahead a little, let’s say that this game is almost the only example where the benefits of switching to a modern API are «on the face». Usually, God forbid, so that it doesn’t get worse, because, of course, no API can effectively use itself, it requires the work of a programmer, and somehow things are not going well with this yet.

    Sid Meier’s Civilization VI (2016, Native, DX11 and DX12)

    , at the start of sales, the game only supported the previous version of the API, but soon support for DirectX 12 was added with the next patch. The game does not shine with graphic delights, but the system requirements are not high — it is enough to have a modern 4-thread processor. At low settings, Phenoms did the same, even if they lagged behind the «hyperstump» by another 40-50%. There were no particular advantages from using DirectX 12, however, as we will see a little later, it didn’t get worse — “already bread”.

    Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands (2017, AnvilNext 2.0, DX11)

    The tactical shooter Ghost Recon Wildlands is the only representative of the AnvilNext 2.0 «engine» in this test, since the last parts of the Assassins do not run on Phenom’ ah, due to the lack of support for SSE4.x instruction sets. The game is also quite content with modern 4-thread processors, so the G4600 defeated it «at the minimum» without any problems, but the old Phenoms had a hard time, but tolerable.

    Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III (2017, Essence Engine 4, DX11)

    Apparently, the Warhammer 40,000 RTS Dawn of War III is the only game on the current version of the Essence Engine — «engine» from Relic Entertainment, used in the Company of Heroes series of games and, in fact, Warhammer 40,000. In technical terms, the «engine» is far from perfect — modern APIs (DirectX 12, Vulkan) are not supported, so the main load usually falls on one single thread. The result is more than natural: Phenoms in Dawn of War III have a hard time even at the minimum quality settings, and the «hyperstump», of course, could.

    Total War: Warhammer II (2017, TW Engine 3, DX11 and DX12)

    A mixture of turn-based strategy and real-time strategy, Warhammer II is by no means the latest game in the Total War series, but so far the last one with support for DirectX12 (albeit at the beta stage). Unfortunately, one important point was missed during testing — in the battle mode (Battle Benchmark), the game scales well across threads, but in the campaign mode (Campaign Benchmark), most of the load falls on just one thread. In this testing, there will be results only for the first scenario. And in the combat mode, the results of Phenoms are really not that bad — if you lose to the «hyperstump» by the usual two times, the performance is enough for a comfortable game at the minimum settings. And yes, here is the promised example, where the transition to DirectX 12 only harms both Phenoms and hyperstumps. On the one hand, DirectX 12 support was dropped only in beta mode, on the other hand, it never reached the final stage, and, moreover, in the next games in the series (Saga: Thrones of Britannia and Three Kingdoms), DirectX 12 support is still didn’t show up. Something at The Creative Assembly with DirectX 12 clearly did not grow together.

    Middle-earth: Shadow of War (2017, Firebird Engine, DX11)

    Open-world RPG Middle-earth: Shadow of War was the first game on the new version of the LithTech engine, which received a new name during the rebranding — firebird engine. The game as a whole is not too demanding on the CPU, and as a result, Phenoms manage to cope at low settings, although again yielding about 50% to «hyperstump».

    F1 2018 (2018, EGO Engine, DX11 and DX12)

    F1 2018 is the first game based on the EGO Engine to support the DirectX 12 API, even if it didn’t happen right away. Phenom’s in general F1 2018 turned out to be «too tough», although the backlog from the «hyperstump» in this game is slightly more than what we observed earlier. Moreover, the transition to DirectX 12 again only worsens performance — it’s not critical for a «hyperstump», but Phenom’s are already a little «uncomfortable».

    Strange Brigade (2018, Asura Engine, DX12 and Vulkan)

    The honor of the Asura Engine is defended by the cooperative third-person shooter Strange Brigade, which does not require a productive processor at minimum settings — even the tested Phenoms cope without problems. Vulkan’s performance is slightly better, but even when using DirectX 12, the frame rate is more than adequate.

    Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018, Foundation Engine, DX11 and DX12)

    development, known as the Crystal Engine or Foundation Engine. The game requires a minimum of a modern 4-thread processor for comfortable play. There is support for DirectX 12, and in terms of performance in DirectX 12 mode, the game usually shows results that are superior to those using DirectX 11. But for some reason this is not our case — both Phenoms and hyperstump performed in DirectX mode 12 is worse. It may be due to a small number of threads, but the performance drop when using DirectX 12 is an unpleasant thing anyway. However, more important here is the fact that Phenoms lack performance even in DirectX 11.

    Forza Horizon 4 (2018, ForzaTech, DX12)

    The Forza Horizon 4 open-world arcade car simulator based on the ForzaTech «engine» is a DirectX 12 exclusive and is quite content with modern 4-thread processors, so the good results of the G4600 surprise they do not call, but Phenoms, unfortunately, still pass.

    Hitman 2 (2018, Glacier 2, DX11 and DX12)

    The stealth action Hitman 2 on the Glacier 2 «engine» was originally released only with support for the DirectX 11 API and only a few months later acquired support for a more up-to-date DirectX 12. The processors participating in the tests do not receive any special advantages from using DirectX 12, only the 1% low FPS indicators grow slightly, which still does not save Phenoms.

    Far Cry New Dawn (2019, Dunia 2, DX11)

    Far Cry New Dawn FPS based on Dunia Engine does not support modern APIs (DirectX 12 or Vulkan). In general, Ubisoft (as a game developer, not a publisher) with support for new APIs has something completely sad. But games in recent years have been stamped, God forbid! Directly, «pot, do not cook!», However, let’s not be distracted. Once again, the unimpressive results of the 4-core Phenom are no longer surprising, and the «hyperstump» coped as usual.

    Metro Exodus (2019, 4A Engine, DX11 and DX12)

    First-person shooter based on the «engine» developed by 4A Engine supports both DirectX 11 and DirectX 12, however, special advantages in terms of performance in scenarios with «emphasis» on the processor was not noticed. To play at minimum settings, a modern 4-thread processor is enough. Phenom’y again «overboard».

    Gears 5 (2019, Unreal Engine 4, DX12)

    A third-person shooter based on Unreal Engine 4 with exclusive support for DirectX 12 again needs a modern 4-thread «hyperstump», and Phenoms are «on the verge» of playability.

    Borderlands 3 (2019, Unreal Engine 4, DX11 and DX12)

    not limited only to DirectX 12. The results are generally the same — «hyperstump» can still do something (albeit it got worse in DirectX 12 mode), and Phenoms definitely «throw a white flag».

    Conclusions

    A total of 17 game projects of the last 5 years were tested, based on 16 game «engines», at the minimum graphics settings. Slightly less than half, namely 8, of the tested projects support DirectX 11 and DirectX 12, 6 support only DirectX 11, 2 more support only DirectX 12, and finally 1 project supports both modern APIs, DirectX 12 and Vulkan.

    The performance of AMD’s first 4-core desktop processors is as follows:

    • In the tested games of the current five-year period at minimum performance quality settings, Phenom X4 and Phenom II X4 are at least somewhat sufficient for most games of 2015-2017 and definitely not enough for most games of 2018-2019. Of course, we are talking about not the highest-frequency models, in stock, and even on the «non-native» AM2 platform for them, but this data is useful as a starting point for further research.
    • Average of all tested games 4-core Phenom X4 9650 (2.3 GHz) lags behind the modern 2-core 4-thread Pentium G4600 by 61%, 63% and 66% in terms of average, 1% low and 0.1% low FPS, respectively. Phenom II X4 925 (2.8 GHz) performed slightly better, lagging behind the same competitor by 51%, 53% and 56% on average in the same indicators, respectively.
    • Regarding the Phenom X4 9650, the processor of the second generation of 4-core solutions AMD Phenom II X4 925, due primarily to a 22% higher clock frequency, shows an average of 23, 26 and 29% higher average, 1% low and 0.1% low FPS, respectively. Of course, such an increase does not justify an almost double overpayment, and one should not forget that AM3 processors are supported, to put it mildly, not by any AM2 board.

    According to the durability and relevance of the AM2 platform:

    • Many AM2 boards can be equipped with 4-core processors of at least the first generation Phenom, which allows you to play AAA projects at minimum quality settings until the 2017 release. Yes, the frame rates are not impressive, but think about it — Socket AM2 has replaced Socket 939 in mid-2006, that is, more than 13 years ago, and 4-core processors compatible with it at the end of 2007, that is, 13 years ago. In this context, the results shown are impressive.
    • Starting from 2018, 4-core Phenoms of both the first and second generations in stock can no longer cope with games, and not every AM2 board can overclock them properly, since even top AM2 boards with a power subsystem sufficient for overclocking , often do not have the ability to raise the voltage of AM2 + processors, as well as lower the multiplier of the memory controller built into them, which can significantly limit overclocking.
    • Ultimately, the AM2 platform is, of course, no longer relevant. At most (in the presence of an AM2 board and other junk from that era), it makes sense, perhaps, to assemble a WB for the Internet and «incorruptible», but even such an undertaking is doubtful.

    DirectX 12 outperforms DirectX 11 in 8 game projects that support both APIs: 0.1% low FPS (Deus Ex Mankind Divided), on average, in DirectX 12 modes, game performance is even several percent lower in all respects compared to DirectX 11.

  • Here, of course, it should be understood that it usually takes years to develop an AAA project, so you should not expect games that “to the fullest” use the new API immediately after its announcement or even release. Developers often have no desire to transfer the engine of an unreleased game to a new API, as this will easily entail serious delays in development.
  • We should also not ignore the fact that most of the processors in desktop PCs are still 4-threaded, and with such a small number of threads, a jump in performance from using modern APIs should not be expected. In addition, it must be taken into account that by far the most popular API, DirectX, in its modern version 12 was for a long time the exclusive of Windows 10, despite the fact that a significant part of Windows users continued to use the 7th version of this OS. And all this did not contribute to the promotion of support for modern APIs in the priority list of computer game developers.
  • However, recently the situation has begun to change: thanks to Ryzen processors, 6 cores today are already quite an average, most popular segment, and Microsoft has added support for DirectX 12 in Windows 7, and in general, many have finally switched to Windows 10. So, in this sense, as they say, «we need to wait a little longer», and multi-core processors will finally «open up» properly in games.
  • Then, as they say, I take my leave.

    This material was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.

    AMD Socket AM2+ Processor Table List

    Skip to content

    Category: AMD Desktop Processor Table Lists
    Tags: #AM2_plus, #AMD_AM2_plus, #list_of_processors_am2_plus, #processors_AM2_plus, #processors_AM2_plus, #list_processors_amd_am2_plus, #table_of_processors_amd_am2-plus

    • Description
    • Reviews (0)

    The AM2+ platform replaced AM2 in 2009 and was replaced by AM3 in 2009.

    Full list of AMD processors for Socket AM2+:

    Model Process family Cores (Threads) Frequency Turbo L2/L3 cache Memory Video core Heat pack
    PhenomII X4_940 45nm 4(4) 3.0Ghz/- 2/6Mb DDR2_1066 —- 125W
    PhenomII X4_920 45nm 4(4) 2.8Ghz/- 2/6Mb DDR2_1066 —- 125W
    Phenom X4_9950 65nm 4(4) 2.6Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 125W
    Phenom X4_9850 65nm 4(4) 2.5Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 125W
    Phenom X4_9750 65nm 4(4) 2. 4Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 125W
    Phenom X4_9650 65nm 4(4) 2.3Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X4_9600 65nm 4(4) 2.3Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X4_9550 65nm 4(4) 2.2Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2-1066 95
    Phenom X4_9500 65nm 4(4) 2.2Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X4_9450E 65nm 4(4) 2.1Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 65W
    Phenom X4_9350E 65nm 4(4) 2.0Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 65W
    Phenom X4_9150E 65nm 4(4) 1. 8Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 65W
    Phenom X4_9100E 65nm 4(4) 1.8Ghz/- 2/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 65W
    Phenom X3_8850 65nm 3(3) 2.5Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 95W
    Phenom X3_8750 65nm 3(3) 2.4Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X3_8650 65nm 3(3) 2.3Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X3_8600 65nm 3(3) 2.3Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X3_8550 65nm 3(3) 2.2Ghz/- 1. 5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X3_8450 65nm 3(3) 2.1Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X3_8450E 65nm 3(3) 2.1Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 65W
    Phenom X3_8400 65nm 3(3) 2.1Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Phenom X3_8250E 65nm 3(3) 1.9Ghz/- 1.5/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 65W
    Athlon X2_7850 65nm 2(2) 2.8Ghz/- 1/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Athlon X2_7750 65nm 2(2) 2.7Ghz/- 1/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Athlon X2_7550 65nm 2(2) 2. 5Ghz/- 1/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Athlon X2_7450 65nm 2(2) 2.4Ghz/- 1/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Athlon X2_6500 65nm 2(2) 2.3Ghz/- 1/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 95W
    Athlon X2_5000 45nm 2(2) 2.2Ghz/- 1/2Mb DDR2_1066 —- 65W

    Socket AM2+ Platform History

    Socket AM2+ was introduced by Advanced Micro Devices in 2007. The AM2+ platform was a further development of Socket AM2 while maintaining full processor compatibility. That is, AM2 CPUs are able to work without any restrictions in AM2 + motherboards and vice versa. In some cases, a BIOS update is required. The fundamental difference between the new platform and the previous one was the use of the following technologies in the logic sets:
    — HyperTransport 3. 0 — high-speed data bus operating at frequencies up to 2.6 GHz;
    — divided power circuits into CPU cores and memory controller;
    — availability of DD2 and DDR3 RAM controllers;
    — support for DDR3 memory.
    Due to the presence of a DDR3 controller in the AM2 + logic set, processors created for the subsequent AM3 platform were also compatible with it, while AM2 / AM2 + processors were not compatible with AM3 boards.
    The AM2+ socket was a milestone in history for AMD, as it was for this socket that the company introduced its first three- and four-core Phenom X3 and Phenom X4 processors. These 65nm and 45nm CPUs had an excellent price/performance ratio and were able to compete with the most popular Intel products at that time — Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad.
    The connector was originally supposed to be called AM2r2, but at the last moment AMD changed its name to the familiar AM2+.

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom processors for Socket AM2

    The relatively long lifespan and good stability of the «method 5. 0″ led to the fact that we tested all current processor families with its help (and in some cases not at all one or two representatives everyone), and there is still time to do 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 “how much in grams” you can win with an upgrade does not apply to idle ones. And for an accurate answer to it, you need to know both the performance of new processors and the level of outdated ones. You can, of course, use the results of long-term tests, but after all, they all refer to equally popular versions of software, and it tends to change. Therefore, new tests are needed. It is quite difficult to carry out which — both the processors themselves must still be found, and the other environment 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 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 you can handle the newer (but, in principle, equivalent to the previous one in terms of performance) AM2 platform. What we, in fact, will do today, fortunately, we managed to find as many as five suitable processors. More precisely, seven, but two were too out of 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 stand configuration

    Processor Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Athlon 64 FX-62 Athlon 64 X2 6000+
    Core 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
    Number of compute cores/threads 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 89W 125 W 125 W

    Unfortunately, we did not come across any single-core Athlon 64. More precisely, one was found in the storerooms, but its study showed that this is a model for Socket 939. It’s a pity, since at first only such models fell into the mass segment — at the time of the announcement of the platform, the company estimated the minimum dual-core (which was 3800+) as much as 303 dollars (the reason is clear — there were still a few months left before the release of Core 2 Duo, and Pentium D had lower performance than 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 at that time was quite «cool» for a dual-core model.

    Unfortunately, no other younger «classic» 90 nm dual-core processors and no representatives of the 65 nm process technology could be found. So conclusions about the dual-core family will have to be drawn on the basis of the mentioned «initial» 3800+ and three models formally (since two of them appeared after this family lost the status of maximum performance devices) 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 other two participants. But we could not 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. A legend, after all. Although it has been greatly devalued over the past years, but once the processor rightfully occupied its price level, being the most productive x86 solution on the market.

    Processor Phenom X4 9500 Phenom II X4 940
    Core name Agena Deneb
    Production technology 65 nm 45 nm
    Core frequency, GHz 2.2 3.0
    Number of compute 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 pancake in the form of Phenom X4 9500 and the breakthrough Phenom II X4 940. Again, the latter is not so interesting, since we tested the Phenom II line for AM3, and they differ only in supported memory, but formally 940 is the best that was made under AM2+. In practice, on many boards with this socket, you can use more efficient solutions, thanks to the backward compatibility of the two platforms, but the formal status is also a reason to get to know each other 🙂

    As for the first Phenom, 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 with «50»), and BIOS patches appeared to ensure the stable operation of already sold processors. At one time, we tested one of the Phenom engineering samples 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, by several times). Well, since this error did not always spoil the user’s life with the instability of the system, many naturally preferred to disable this fix at their own peril and risk.

    Unfortunately, with modern software, this is already very difficult to do, unlike the times of Windows XP — Microsoft has built the error fix directly into its operating systems. It started with SP1 for Windows Vista and, of course, 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 either. And from the point of view of testing processors in modern software, such tweaks are not correct. But it’s worth remembering their capabilities if someone still has to use a computer based on the first generation Phenom (moreover, according to reviews, performance increases even on models with the correct stepping). As well as the fact that simply disabling the TLB-patch in Setup when working under modern Windows operating systems no longer affects anything (we did a quick check of this to make sure clearly). Or, by the way, this situation can be considered as another reason not to rush to install a new OS on an old computer, which is already not too fast so that it would have a desire to work with the most “fresh” versions of application software — it’s better or “ the old fashioned way”, or, after all, to 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 on the Athlon family tree, however, what we managed to scrape together, we will test.

    Processor Celeron G530T Celeron G550 Pentium G860 Core i3-2120T
    Core 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 compute 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(4) N/A(2)

    Whom to compare? From modern Intel products, we decided to take four processors. Celeron G530T and G550 have the same clock speed as Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 5200+, respectively (the second pair also has the same cache memory capacity of the «lower» level; however, Celeron has a common L3, while Athlon has a separate L2, but the quantity is the same). The Pentium G860 is no longer the fastest of Intel’s sub-$100 processors since the G870, but it’s exactly 3 GHz like the 6000+. Well, to complete the picture — another energy-efficient processor, namely the Core i3-2120T, operating at a frequency of 2.6 GHz, since we recently compared it with the Core 2 Duo of the same time as the older Athlon 64 X2, and indeed a direct comparison of equal frequencies 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 analyzed this family (albeit in a different design), and compared it with modern (and not so) Intel processors more than once.

    Processor A4-3400 A6-3670K Phenom II X2 545 Phenom II X3 740
    Core 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 compute 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(2) N/A(0) N/A(1) N/A(0)

    And four more models from the AMD range. First, A4-3400 and A6-3670K. The second one, after a recent price cut, «lives» at the level of older Pentiums, and the first one 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 AM2 heyday. Accordingly, if someone has not yet raised a hand to throw out a five-year-old system unit, the cheaper FM1 can stimulate this process. An added bonus is that both processors run at 2.7 GHz, which is exactly between the 5200+ and the FX-62. And two old Phenom IIs running at a clock frequency of 3 GHz: X2 545 and X3 740 are also asking for the list of test subjects. From a practical point of view, of course, it’s too late to remember them, but from a theoretical point of view they will do.

    System board RAM
    AM2 ASUS M3A78-T (790GX) 8 GB DDR2 (2×800; 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 [RipjawsX] F3-14900CL9D-8GBXL (2×1866/1600; 9-10-9-28)
    LGA1155 Biostar TH67XE (H67) Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2×1333/1066; 9-9-9-24 / 8-8-8-20)

    A small note about the frequency of RAM — although officially all dual-core processors under AM2 support DDR2-800, for 5200+ and 6000+ the real memory frequencies are somewhat different from the theoretical ones: 746 and 752 MHz, respectively, due to a limited set of dividers (which we mentioned last time). The difference from the regular mode, however, is small, but it can affect somewhere compared to the FX-62, which works in a “canonically correct way”, since its frequency is divided by 400 completely (the same for the 3800+, but, of course, these “monsters a priori not competitors). And all Phenoms (both the first and second generations) also 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. In general, also trifles, 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 on the diagrams (for details on the testing methodology, see a separate article). The results on the diagrams are given in points, the performance of the iXBT.com reference test system of the 2011 sample is taken as 100 points. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and the video card (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1280 MB by Palit) are standard for all tests of the «main line» and can only be changed as part of special studies. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are shown both in converted points and in «natural» form.

    Interactive work in 3D packages

    The almost identical results of three Phenom II once again show that these tests are unable to utilize more than two computation threads. It would seem that an ideal situation for older Athlon 64 X2 is high-frequency dual-core processors with a relatively large and fast L2. But… even the 6000+ lags not only behind the A4-3400 with a frequency of 2.7 GHz, but also behind the two-GHz (!) Celeron G530T, and the results of the rest in this scenario can be ignored. In general, over the past years, processor architectures have stepped far ahead (not all at once, but the overall progress is not bad), which cannot be ignored. There were, of course, extremely unsuccessful steps along the way, such as the first Phenom. The Lion’s Share of Responsibility for Failure 9500 is based on the TLB patch, but even without this, one cannot count on high results of the first K10 — low-frequency models with a small (by modern standards) cache memory capacity, and even a slow one. And the cores here, we repeat, are useless.

    Final rendering of 3D scenes

    These subtests are useful, but Phenom X4 9500 still managed to overtake only a part of dual-core processors, and even then not the fastest ones. The reason is simple — low frequency. Yes, and cache memory for these tasks is important. Although it is clear that , even a carcass, even a stuffed , these processors had to be produced (at least based on such loads), since the Athlon 64 X2 is even slower, and AMD did not have other processors then. Later, Phenom II X4 turned out to be an excellent work on bugs, so the quad-core modification is still relevant today. By the way, the fastest processors for FM1 (Athlon II X4 651 and A8-3870K) in this group show a score of 124 points, i.e. almost the same as that became available to AM2+ holders almost four years ago. Not so bad, in general 🙂 Well, if, of course, you don’t put too much emphasis on the fact that the Core i7-9 that appeared at the same time at a fairly close price20 is capable of 182 points.

    Packing and unpacking

    A very revealing group of tests. Firstly, the terrible results of the Phenom X4 9500 were predetermined: at one time, the inclusion of a «patch» for TLB slowed down an engineering sample three times. However, even without it, the Phenom at 2.6 GHz (not 2.2 as here) only slightly outperformed the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, so we can even say that its performance has improved slightly over the years, the reason for which is multithreading support new versions of 7-Zip. But she did not allow it either (this is the second observation) Phenom II X4 940 to overtake at least the tri-core Phenom II X3 740, which has a higher cache frequency and works with faster DDR3 RAM. The third interesting point is that the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ scores exactly 100 points, just like the reference Athlon II X4 620 operating at a lower frequency. But Celeron and others like them cannot reach the same frequency. And the A4-3400 (2.7 GHz, 2×512 KB L2) is faster than the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2.6 GHz, 2×1024 KB L2).

    Well, one more interesting result (albeit a little from a different opera): the Core i3-2120T is approximately equal to the Phenom II X3 740. Although the second has twice the L3 capacity, the frequency is almost 15% higher, and there are three cores, which at Other things being equal, it’s still better than two cores with Hyper-Threading support.

    Audio encoding

    Cache is unimportant — pure mathematics, so the Phenom X4 9500 managed to demonstrate relatively good results (for the purposes of this article, of course) The high clocked Core i3-2120T isn’t radically faster. However, the dual-core Pentium G860 is by no means much slower, and it also managed to overtake the equal-frequency tri-core Phenom II X3 740. Apparently, it is for this reason that the «classic» three-core processors died a long time (three-module FX is a slightly different story). Also, Athlon 64 X2 6000+ managed to outperform Celeron G530T and A4-3400: new instruction sets and other improvements of modern architectures are not involved in these subtests, so the high frequency saved us. 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 — it is already more than enough. In particular, the fact that 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 those equipped with HT Celeron G460/G465 support), despite the lack of alternatives to multi-core for this group of tests.

    Compilation

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

    Mathematical and engineering calculations

    But here the benefits of multithreading are small, so 940 only slightly outperformed 545, but lagged behind 740. However, this is also a good result, albeit suitable only for intra-company competition — a certain «Pro-Intel» essence of packages there is a professional purpose, and there is no getting away from it. But AMD has clearly not stood still — even though the A4-3400 loses to Celeron, its «specific» (per unit clock frequency) advantage over the Athlon 64 X2 is about 20%.

    Bitmap graphics

    Some of the tests are multi-threaded, some are not, so Phenom II X3 from AMD already looks quite sufficient for solving such problems: 940 turned out to be only slightly faster than 740 due to slow memory and lower cache frequencies, and A6- The 3670K «hangs» at the same level due to the complete absence of the latter and a lower clock frequency. But, generally speaking, high-frequency Celerons and Pentiums look best here, and low-frequency ones are also not bad. The «old» AMD processors cannot be saved by either the frequency or the number of cores — Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which has become familiar, is also behind the A4-3400.

    Vector graphics

    As we have already established, these programs are undemanding to the number of computational threads, but their performance depends on the cache memory, so there is nothing surprising in the fact that three equal frequency Phenom II showed close results with a slight loss of 940 — there the L3 frequency is lower by 200 MHz. But this is just a Sandy Bridge level with a frequency of 2.6 GHz (i3 is slightly faster than Celeron just due to the «extra» megabyte of cache memory), and one of the best Athlon 64 X2 managed to overtake only A4-3400 and 2 GHz Celeron. Other representatives of the line are even slower, and for Phenom X4 9500, such a load promises an inglorious defeat — the frequency of the cores is low, and the TLB-patch has a disgusting effect on the performance of the cache memory, not for the first time. However, it is obvious that even without it we would get a result only a little higher than that of Athlon 64 X2 3800+, which is clearly not enough to compete with modern processors.

    Video encoding

    Phenom X4 9500 once again managed to overtake some relatively modern dual-core processors: the cache doesn’t bother it much here, but there are four cores. But slow. Athlon 64 X2, for obvious reasons, cannot suffer from the «TLB bug», so this bug is fixed, too, but their cores are just as slow architecturally, and there are only two of them. And even the frequency does not help much. The results of Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 6000+ are especially indicative — they are almost twice inferior to 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, big things are seen from a distance — just a little over six years ago, there was simply no line better than Athlon 64 X2 on the market, and now it is simply unable to compete even with budget models from both AMD and Intel. Here is Phenom II X4 940 is capable of this with ease, but this is a significantly newer processor, and its brothers now live in the budget sector. The Phenom II X4 955, for example, has been shipping in bulk for $81 since September, but what makes it different from the 940? Only support for DDR3 memory and +200 MHz to cores and L3. By the way, remember that at the time of the announcement, the recommended price of 940 was neither more nor less, but 275 full-weight dollars — processors devalue quickly in the modern world 🙂

    Office software

    The vast majority of tests in this group are single-threaded, and they do not use intensive improvements in modern architectures, so Athlon 64 X2 is quite enough for such an application. Unless, of course, you are embarrassed by the cost of electricity — the 6000+ traditionally lags behind both the G530T and the A4-3400, and these processors do not require hundreds of watts at all. It is clear that the «old men» are also not fully loaded with such work, so they will cost a few dozen, but «a few» — in their case more. And also some kind of video will be needed additionally. But overall, it’s enough to get the job done. Which is quite consistent with the fact that in offices many still use various Celerons or Semprons, and even slower ones than we recently tested. Accordingly, 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

    Phenom X4 9500 once again had a blast, since there are still four cores, and cache memory and its performance do not really matter here, but in its case, “totally” means only a result equal to 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 patches) causes respect. What about the other members? As usual: Athlon 64 X2 is unsuccessfully trying to catch up with at least some modern budget processor, and Phenom II X4 demonstrates that it can be considered as such 🙂

    Games

    There was a time when Athlon 64s (not even X2s) 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 “by pull”, not to mention dual-core models. Modern dual-core models. And not the ancient ones, to which laptop processors can be considered competitors only in the terminology of Russian tenders 🙂 As for the Phenom X4 9500, we’d better refrain from talking about a rope in the hanged man’s house, and in the comments on the results of one of the most «cash-loving» bands, it is not worth remembering the «TLB martyrs».

    Multitasking environment

    By the way, even here this ancestor 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 perspective” 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-GHz Celeron or dual-core Llano (by the way, the younger Athlon II X2 have the same performance as the A4), and Phenom II X4 940 is just Phenom II X4. A good processor for 92,794 is about a hundred 92,795 dollars, even if it cost almost three hundred at one time — devaluation, sir.

    Total

    In the end, we have what was expected — a hodgepodge of one-, two- and multi-threaded tests (which is, in fact, an exact projection of modern software; including the one that lends itself poorly to benchmarking, and, therefore, does not fit into the test methods just as poorly) made the best processor for Socket AM2+ approximately equal to an 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 the owners of systems based on LGA775, owners of a good motherboard with AM2 + and a sufficient amount of DDR2 memory can upgrade their computer to a very good level. Not the top, of course, but the Phenom II X6 1100T has a «weighted average» performance of 159points, and Phenom II X4 980 — 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 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 in bulk, and if it also works on an existing board: despite the name same socket, LGA775 is four limited compatible platforms (however, problems are also possible with the oldest AM2 boards). AMD, on the other hand, continues to sell 980 and 1100T for $163 and $198 respectively. It’s a little expensive to some extent, 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, boards with LGA1155 and memory will cost much more).

    And now the bad news, which follows directly from the good news — it makes no sense to use a board with AM2+ together with a processor for AM2 or AM2+. And it is not even necessary to look closely at the top models for AM3 mentioned above — besides them, AMD has a lot more in its assortment. And not only among new processors, but also among retail stores or in the secondary market. Where to buy some Athlon II X3 or even X4 can be very cheap — since now the manufacturer values ​​the younger Phenom II X4 at only 80-90 dollars. Is there any reason? Yes there is. After all, even the best Athlon 64 X2, as we saw today, are inferior to the A4-3400, and this processor is approximately equal to the Athlon II X2 215. Let’s note that X2 is also the best. Well, replacing, for example, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ with the long-outdated Athlon II X4 630 will simply double the average performance.

    It is clear that all these considerations are justified only if the available board supports AM3 processors: otherwise, it’s easier to change the platform (to LGA1155, FM1 or FM2 — it doesn’t make much difference). And it is even more clear that in general it makes sense to fill your head with them only when the performance of the existing computer is no longer enough. After all, many still somehow use Pentium 4, Athlon XP or Celeron and Sempron (even slower ones than we recently tested). Accordingly, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ will seem to them something no less reactive than the famous Pink Panther (after all, even within the framework of AM2 it is 53 points against 30 for Sempron 3000+), and the owner of such a device is a man taken to heaven during 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 look at their results only with a smile or a nostalgic sadness. Moreover, the process of devaluation began in the same 2006 — the FX-62 was the “king of the hill” for only one quarter, after which it lost even to the top-end, but only close to that 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, which was also topped by the E6700 and X6800, all 77). Well, in the future, both companies have gone far ahead. Let’s emphasize both.

    Of course, Intel’s success looks more prominent: Celeron G530T has a frequency of only 2 GHz and a TDP of 35 W (together with the graphics core). But after all, the A4-3400 overtakes the same old people to the same extent. Yes, of course, it needs 2.7 GHz for this (i.e., the specific performance is about a third lower than that of the “bridges”), and the heat pack is already 65 W, but A4 has a rich inner world graphics are more powerful . Moreover, both of these processors are not new: they were announced last year and are already giving way on the shelves to faster “changers”, while AMD has also launched a new architecture. Caused a lot of criticism at the start, however, at least everything went without such a scandal, which accompanied the release of the first Phenom. Moreover, it should be noted that even if there was no notorious «TLB-bug» and the need to fix it, Phenom X4 still could not count on high results. Simply because even the best model in the line with an index of 9950 (which the company did not get right away) worked 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 same cache memory capacity, despite the L3 in the first Phenom — a total of 4 MiB both there and there. Let the A6 have a separate, but full-speed, while the Phenom had only L2.

    Well, how the performance of the «old» and «new» AMD cores correlates, today’s testing showed well — 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 when comparing Phenom X4 9950 with A6-3650. The latter has a result of 110 points, i.e. the best that 9950 could count on — 100 points. Reference. Which are typical for the Athlon II X4 620 (by the way, with the same frequency of 2.6 GHz; and we have already observed something close) or … Celeron G550/G555 🙂 What can we say about the younger representatives of the line, where the frequencies are also low ? Suppose, without problems with the TLB 9500, it would have caught up with the FX-62 (at one time, our testing showed that the patch reduces the overall performance by about 21%) — what would it change? Yes, nothing!

    In general, the best thing that can be said about Agena processors is the debug versions of the Stars family, by working on which (and improving the technical process, of course), we managed to move on to the really successful Deneb, which still remains relevant.