AMD Socket-AM2: Same Performance, Faster Memory, Lower Power
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 23, 2006 12:14 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
And there you have it, quite possibly the most unimpressive launch from AMD (from a performance perspective), but given what we had already seen prior to today there shouldn't be any surprises. The introduction of the Athlon 64 FX-62 means that there is an even faster alternative for those looking to spend as much as possible on a desktop or workstation CPU, but the new 5000+ isn't really all that appealing, especially if you're a gamer.
Socket-AM2 is unfortunately not about performance, and much about bringing a unified memory platform not only to AMD but to the industry as a whole. With all desktop AMD CPUs sharing a single socket end users and OEMs alike will have a much easier job when building AMD systems. On a much more macro scale, with both AMD and Intel using DDR2 memory prices should be driven down even further and switching between platforms will no longer require throwing away your entire memory investment.
The big story with Socket-AM2 is really the introduction of the new Energy Efficient and Energy Efficient Small Form Factor CPUs, but unfortunately those are not yet available. Instead, today's launch ends up being much more about the chipsets being used on AM2 motherboards rather than the CPUs. Later today we will be looking at NVIDIA's nForce 500 series and how the evolution of the most popular AMD chipset has taken to the Socket-AM2 platform.
It is ironic and equally unfortunate for AMD that on the eve of Intel finally getting its act together, that the Socket-AM2 launch is so devoid of any sort of performance improvements. It's clear that AMD's architecture just simply isn't starved of memory bandwidth at this point, and it will take either higher clock speeds or architectural improvements to make the move to DDR2 necessary. We are happy with the fact that AMD at least kept memory latency down while moving to DDR2, but at this point there's simply no use for the bandwidth.
In the coming months we will see the official launch of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors, based on the Conroe core. Only time will tell how availability will affect pricing of those CPUs, but Intel is quite eager to release them. AMD is also awaiting the launch of Core 2 Duo, though for different reasons; in fact one of its stipulations for sending out Socket-AM2 review kits was that the CPUs not be compared to Conroe. We understood and agreed with AMD's stance on the issue, simply because Core 2 Duo (Conroe) isn't shipping yet while AM2 is, but we do get a sense of concern whenever Conroe is brought up around AMD.
AMD does have one last trick up its sleeve before the end of the year, and you will hear about it in June. It's not K8L and it's not going to affect the majority of people, but it is an interesting stop gap solution for the high end in 2006...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
83 Comments
View All Comments
darkdemyze - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
z-ram isn't due for AMD procs for quite some time, I doubt this is their plan for June..mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Basically this is what I said above for my guess of the "trick" AMD will use. Anand said it will only affect some high-end users, read FX series so it can't be price cuts as some have suggested (that would effect everyone). Adding L3 cache is the only performance improvement I can think of that doesn't require changing the microarchitecture of the cores (well at least not a big change).However, TDP is still an issue here as someone above suggested. I don't know how much more power it takes to run L3 cache. Last time AMD did it was on K6 and power wasn't really measured back then.
By the way, please ignore Questar's comment below about z-ram being pig slow. I really don't think he knows what he is talking about. /shields eyes from incoming Questar flame
johnsonx - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link
K6-III did not have L3 cache. It had L2 cache, making the cache that all socket-7 boards had then an L3 cache.So, let's stop saying things like 'AMD hasn't done L3 cache since K6-III', etc.
mino - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link
Well, IMHO the point is AMD has used exclusive 3-level cache structure in the past so they have som experience with thi arrangement.Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
No flame here, look it up for yourself.Z-RAM has high capacitive loading, which results in slow speed.
At 4MB it'll run half the speed of SRAM.
Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Large amounts of Z-RAM are pig slow.Ecmaster76 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Seriously, the one area an Athlon X2 would be bandwidth starved and does it get tested in the preview? NOIn the review? NO
How long ago did we know that the K8 was not bandwidth limited in single application usage? YEARS
So yeah, DDR2 din't increase the 3dMark, big surprise
mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
I think 3dMark06 is multithreaded now so all available cores and bandwidth should be used within the limits of the program. I could be wrong about this however.Ecmaster76 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
3Dmark06 is almost completely GPU limited. The 3Dmark CPU score did increase a bit, but I really was referring to graphics benchmarks in general.cscpianoman - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
I was just noticing the performance differences between the FX and the EE. In some cases the FX tromps the EE by "gasp" 30%! In other cases the EE makes it's mark. This is part of the reason I am skeptic on Conroe. Yeah it's good. But I always take what Intel, or AMD for that matter, with a grain of salt. Just today we saw the 30% advantage translate down to about 15%. This seems just like any other generation change where 15% is to be expected. The current hype for the Conroe is a product of Intel's excellent marketing dept.