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
DrZoidberg - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
Yeah it is disapointing that DDR2 800 doesnt increase performance by much for AMD. I think we will only see nice 20%+ improvements when AMD moves to 65nm CPUS, smaller transistors less power higher clock speed. Too bad 65 nm seems like Quarter 4 at earliest, next year most likely.I do hope when Conroe is released AMD does big price cuts, cause their CPUS will no longer have performance crown so they no longer have excuse to have their X2 processors more expensive than Intel, so we should hopefully get X2 4400+ for $300, or X2 3800 for low $200s.
Shintai - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
Even a 300$ 4400+ would be a bad buy. For 300$ You will get a 2.4Ghz Conroe that will be somewhat like an FX-62. So maybe a 200-250$ 4800+ and a 150-200$ 4400+AMD really needs some extremely aggresive pricecuts to be competitive.
abhaxus - Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - link
they don't need to make price cuts yet... when conroe comes out i'm sure they will drop the prices by quite a bit. as it stands, the X2s are by far the best chip on the market and have been for quite some time, and have been reasonably static on price for half a year now. This is the first time in a long time that i remember chips staying THAT static at high prices.That said... this review makes me worry for AMD. I hope they have something up their sleeve otherwise this generation will go very badly for them.
Sunrise089 - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
20% Seriousely?I'm no CPU expert, but I cannot imagine that kind of gain. Pentium 4's moving to 65nm and 7900GPUs didnt see anywhere near those kinds of gains.
Furen - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
I think a 20% clock speed increase is conceivable if a) AMD's 65nm shrink goes off well (let's assume a 10% increase due to this), and b) AMD's embedded germanium technique is 10% better than current DSL silicon. Of course, clocks woul not be 20% better until yields hit a decent point.I think that the main way we'll see AMD get closer to a performance parity with Intel will be through the various architectural tweaks in Rev G, though there WILL be some clock speed increase out of manufacturing,.
bob661 - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
I think I will wait for the die shrink and just get a dual core and some ram for now. I've been trying to decide whether to wait or not to upgrade. I was thinking about waiting for the die shrink anyways.poohbear - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
"better late than never" is the expression we all know, not "better early than never". wow, anandtech are really trying to sell this cpu in their "final words" section, even though it seems like a waste your money according to your performance tests. i think i'll stick w/ my s939 and just upgrade to a x2 cpu instead of a whole new socket.:/Brunnis - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
You're just reiterating what Anand wrote. He said that there's no point for S939 owners to upgrade, but that AM2 is the natural socket of choice for those who don't already own an up to date system.Are you suggesting that those people should buy S939 parts instead, despite them having a very limited future and worse performance? That makes absolutely zero sense.
poohbear - Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - link
nope it makes perfect sense. i wouldnt hold my breath for the am2 is what im saying. im sorry but a 5% increase doesnt justify ditching my s939 and opty 144. and what are u talking about limited life? w/ dualcores available on the s939 they're gonna be around well into 2008. It's 2006 and there are still tons of people using athlon xps and agp, so plz drop your enthusiast perspective on the market, it's not realistic of what the avg person has.sp1nfer - Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - link
no, it's EOL (end of life) is Q4'06, with socket 754 holding out one year more. By the time you decide to go X2, with AM2 out and all, prices are going to be higher than AM2 counterparts. AMD said it themselves that prices for s939 will be increased near and on AM2 launch. I think Brunnis covered most of it.
It makes perfect sense.