The Test
Unfortunately the platform that we were testing on would only allow us to run our DDR2-800 at 4-5-4 timings, instead of the 3-3-3 that's possible with this memory on socket 775. That hurts performance a bit, but the real world difference between 4-5-4 and 3-3-3 isn't going to be more than a few percentage points.
The only DDR2-800 we had on hand was in the form of 1GB modules, so we had to use a pair of 1GB DDR-400 which ran at 2-3-2, instead of the 2-2-2 we normally run with our smaller 512MB modules. Once again, the difference in performance isn't tremendous, but we wanted to explain why the timings were different than what we've used in the past.
Both our Socket-AM2 and Socket-939 Athlon 64 X2 processors ran at the same clock speed with the same cache sizes, so the results should give us a clear indication of whether or not AM2 is faster than equivalent 939 configuration.
| CPU: | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Socket-AM2 AMD Athlon 64 X2 Socket-939 |
| Motherboard: | ASUS A8N32-SLI (Socket-939) Unnamed MCP55 Socket-AM2 Motherboard |
| Chipset: | NVIDIA nForce4 SLI x16 NVIDIA MCP55 |
| Chipset Drivers: | nForce4 6.70 |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA |
| Memory: | OCZ PC8000 DDR2-800 4-5-4-15 (1GB x 2) OCZ DDR-400 2-3-2 (1GB x 2) |
| Video Card: | NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 84.21 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1280 x 1024 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
| OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
107 Comments
View All Comments
Furen - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
Hardly a "common rumor", it's an Inquirer rumor that has been given a lot of circulation but I have yet to see another publication confirm it.jones377 - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
The bandwidth numbers are better now but STILL dissapointing. Intel will probably get about the same or better number from a 1333MHz FSB using DDR2 667. In the past, AMD always got a little better bandwidth out of the same speed modules. Are AMD sandbagging or do they have problems with their DDR2 controller?tk109 - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
So they basicly have no answer to Conroe...rqle - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
yes we do, we still have that "previous generation vs. new generation" quote we can always used. LOL. just like AMD64 vs northwood/presscott.But really though, i assume the amd crowd should be a little smarter and get over that quote.
phaxmohdem - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
I get a bit confused as to what generation is what, and where you draw the line at a generation change for instance:AMD -> Intel
486 -> 486 <--Gen 4
K5/K6 -> Pentium <--Gen 5/6 vs. Gen 5
K6-2/3 -> Pentium II <-- Gen 6
K7 Athlon -> Pentium III <--Gen 7 vs. Gen 6?
K7 Athlon XP -> Pentium 4 Willamette/Northwood <--Gen 7
K8 A64 -> Pentium 4 Prescott <-- Gen 8 vs. Gen 8??
K8 A64 -> Conroe/Core <-- Gen 8 vs. Gen 9?
Perhaps someone can shed some light on this.
Shintai - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
How did Prescott become Gen 8? Its a northwood with 64bitConroe is Gen 8. So your table should say K8 (Gen8) vs Conroe (Gen8)
Furen - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
LOL, how do you define a "generation"? What kind of changes indicate that you're talking about a new generation? The K8 is remarkably similar to a K7, so is it a newer generation or just an improvement on the same one? Does it even matter?The K8 has been on the market for close to three years now, so it's completely understandable that a brand new architecture will give it a run for its money. I'll say this, though, both the K8 and the Prescott came out at around the same time, so considering both the same generation is reasonable.