Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
AMD Socket-AM2: Same Performance, Faster Memory, Lower Power
AMD Socket-AM2: Same Performance, Faster Memory, Lower Power
Date: May 23rd, 2006
Topic: CPU & Chipset
Manufacturer: AMD
Author: Anand Lal Shimpi
 
 

Does AM2 Reduce the Impact of L2 Cache Size?

We've already seen that Socket-AM2 doesn't really impact performance except for in games, but does the higher bandwidth memory controller reduce the impact of AMD's 1MB L2 cache parts compared to its 512KB L2 cache offerings? 

 Benchmark - Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz Socket-939 (1MB vs. 512KB Advantage)  Socket-AM2 (1MB vs. 512KB Advantage)
Cinebench 9.5 Multi-Core Rendering Test 0.2% 0%
3dsmax 7 0.3% 0.6%
Adobe Photoshop CS2 2.7% 2.5%
DivX 6.1 0% 0%
WME9 0% 1%
Quicktime 7.0.4 (H.264) 0.9% 1.3%
iTunes 6.0.1.4 (MP3) 0% 0%
Quake 4 - 10x7 (SMP) 4.8% 3.5%
Oblivion - 10x7 7.5% 3.3%
F.E.A.R. - 10x7 8.6% 6.2%

 

In the application benchmarks there isn't really a difference in how performance scales with cache size between the two platforms, but looking at the games there is indication of a pattern that is developing.

In Quake 4, Oblivion and F.E.A.R. the 1MB L2 cache seems to make slightly more of a difference on the Socket-939 platform than on the Socket-AM2 platform.  While the 1MB cache offers a 4.8%, 7.5% and 8.6% performance advantage in those three games on the Socket-939 platform, on AM2 the advantage is cut down to 3.5%, 3.3% and 6.2% respectively.  The explanation being that with a lower latency memory controller and more available memory bandwidth, the benefits of a larger cache are reduced on Socket-AM2. 

However the differences in performance scaling that we're seeing here are small enough that once you take into account the amount of variation you can see between runs, it's not really worth concluding anything concrete based on this data.  What we do see here is a trend of the 1MB L2 cache parts doing less on Socket-AM2 than on Socket-939 (another way of looking at it is that the 512KB are doing better on AM2 than they did on 939), but the margins are small enough that we can't really say for sure what is causing the trend.

Once again, the trend only seems to impact games, as the other application tests we've run appear to be basically unaffected. 

How Does the New 4000+ Stack Up?   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

80 Comments - Last by MadAd, 1352 days ago
Username:
Password:
Not much of performance gain by absolsp, 1358 days ago
As suspected, not much of performance gain. Happy with my existing AMD setup.

Reply
RE: Not much of performance gain by Puddyglum, 1358 days ago
Do these results really warrant a change of architecture? I wonder if there is some bottleneck keeping the performance stuck where it was with the 939's.

Reply
RE: Not much of performance gain by xFlankerx, 1358 days ago
Athlon 64s simply don't need the additional bandwidth provided by DDR2. They aren't as starved for it as Pentium 4s.

Reply
RE: Not much of performance gain by Questar, 1358 days ago
It's not an architecture change.

It's a new socket to support DDR2 memory, that's it.

Reply
RE: Not much of performance gain by Locutus465, 1357 days ago
After reading reviews of the new chipset offerings from nVidia and ATI, personally I'm glad I'm running an nForce 4 s393 board. Seems to me the new AM2 chipsets and boards are going to need some maturing before they get good. The new solutions were *not* deffinitivly better than what is out there for s939. In fact, nVidia's offering in my opinion was particularly lack luster in terms of actual performance (compared to the older nForce 4 platform).

Reply
RE: Not much of performance gain by tony215, 1357 days ago
likewise, I will be sticking with my 939 venice set-up until conroe is released. Even then, I will wait for some more independent conroe test/reviews before going with Intel.

Reply
Same old. by xFlankerx, 1358 days ago
Indeed, same results as expected. Maybe this will make the AMD fanboys shut up about "waiting to see what the final results are." NOTE: I have a AMD system, I'm simply addressing those that refuse to accept Conroe's superiority.

Although...I must say that this "stop gap" solution by AMD has piqued my curiosity.

But I believe that these say it perfectly;

"One of its stipulations for sending out Socket-AM2 review kits was that the CPUs not be compared to Conroe."

"We do get a sense of concern whenever Conroe is brought up around AMD."

"So when Intel first started talking about its new Core architecture, we turned to AMD for a response that it surely must have had in the works for years, but as you all know we came up empty handed."

Those just say it all for me. Seems like AMD's in trouble. From what I've been reading, K8L doesn't bring in architectural changes either. Sure you get Quad Cores, L3 cache, FB-DIMM support, DDR3, and faster HyperTransport, but if AMD doesn't improve on it's performance-per-clock efficiency, then Intel's Quad Cores (due almost 9 months before AMD's) are going to rule supreme yet again.

Reply
O rly by Griswold, 1358 days ago
quote:

Those just say it all for me. Seems like AMD's in trouble. From what I've been reading, K8L doesn't bring in architectural changes either.


Maybe read up on it first.

Memory mirroring, data poisoning, HT retry protocol support, doubled prefetch size (32byte instead of 16), 2x 128bit SSE units (instead of 2x 64bit), out of order load execution, Indirect branch predictors and a handful new instructions sure sounds like a few architectural changes and not just a simple revision stepping.

Reply
RE: O rly by rADo2, 1358 days ago
K8L is just a marketing, nothing else. Have you seen K8L CPU? No? AMD is about 2x slower than upcomming Conroe, so they have to spread some fud, to keep their fanboys happy...

This is the magical performance I am speaking about, AMD cannot come even close:

Intel Conroe @ 3.9GHz: SuperPI 1M - 12.984s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=99980

AMD FX-57 @ 4.2GHz: SuperPI 1M - 21.992s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=100101

I own X2 4400+ myself (it was a good choice in 6/2005), but within last few months AMD is a very bad choice, as for the price of quite obsolete singelcore AMD you can buy dualcore Intel D930 @ 65nm, and later Conroe. I think only AMD fanboys are buying AMD now, AMD has the worst price/value ratio, and Conroe will only make this gap wider.

Reply
RE: O rly by Griswold, 1358 days ago
Blablabla...

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 8

Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
We Buy Laptop and PC Memory! Sell to Us!
Min of 25 pieces required. Call us today at 239.354.1230.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.
Download Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System
Streamline Dev processes, Reduce time to market. Try Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, FREE!




Latest news by
DailyTech

 February 9, 2010

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 February 8, 2010

Blank


more CPU & Chipset Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2010 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information