Final Words

If AMD's Socket-AM2 only offers a minimal performance increase, then why on Earth is AMD moving to it?

AMD has done a tremendous job of making DDR-400 last with their architecture. When Intel first talked about moving to DDR2 there was concern that AMD's delayed move to the new memory technology would result in it being behind the curve, but the absolute opposite held true; Intel showed no benefit from DDR2 initially and AMD did just fine with only DDR-400.

However times are changing, and after a very long hiatus Intel will soon resume increases in FSB frequency, not to mention that their new Core architecture is considerably more data hungry than anything we've seen to date. So on the Intel side of the fence, the greater bandwidth offered by DDR2 will finally have a real use. With Intel DDR2 demand increasing and more manufacturing shifting away from DDR, it now makes sense for AMD to jump on the DDR2 bandwagon as well. If AMD does it early enough, the transition to DDR2 will be complete before any of its products desperately need it, which is always a better route.

It's not the most convincing reason to switch to DDR2 today, but AMD has stayed on DDR1 far longer than anyone expected and it's better to be early than never. The fact of the matter is that CPUs will get more cores, reach higher clock speeds and feature more data-hungry architectural changes, all of which require more memory bandwidth. AMD's options are to either add more memory bus pins to the already staggering 939-pin package, or to embrace a higher bandwidth (and lower voltage) memory standard; the option it chose makes a lot of sense.

There's also this issue of efficiency; based on our ScienceMark results, AMD was able to build an extremely efficient DDR-400 memory controller into their processors. The Rev E processors are able to deliver over 5GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is extremely close to the 6.4GB/s theoretical maximum offered by a 128-bit DDR-400 memory interface. The Rev F AM2 processors we've tested aren't able to break 7GB/s yet, which albeit an increase of 35% over the best Socket-939 numbers we've seen, still ends up being only 53% of the peak bandwidth offered by a 128-bit DDR2-800 memory controller compared to the almost 80% we saw on the Rev E.

If we use history as our predictor of the future, it may take a few more revisions of AM2 before we see that sort of efficiency, if we ever do. AMD has come a very long way since the performance we saw back in January, and if that's any indication we may just end up seeing better performance out of Rev G and H processors in the future. The verdict is also not out on Rev F; although the launch is only two months away, we keep on hearing that availability won't be until July. While that's not enough time for AMD to be making major changes to the silicon, it is quite possible that the changes have already been made and they're just waiting to get new chips back from the fab.

Based on what we saw with the Rev E cores and DDR-500, coupled with our results here with DDR2-800, it looks like Socket-AM2 will offer minor performance gains across the board if paired with very low latency DDR2-800, but otherwise it looks like it'll offer performance as good as Socket-939. If you're looking for numbers, with DDR2-800 at 3-3-3 we'd expect to see 2 - 7% gains across the board, with the 7% figure being reserved for applications like Quake 4 or DivX and the 2% figure being far more common.

Why would you move to Socket-AM2? If you're well invested in an up-to-date Socket-939 system, and if these numbers we've seen here today hold true for shipping AM2 platforms, then there's no reason to upgrade immediately. However, if you're buying or building a brand new system, then by all means AM2 makes a lot more sense than Socket-939. Like it or not, DDR2 is the future, and AM2 will be the new socket for AMD's future 65nm parts as well. DDR2 is also competitively priced with DDR memory while generally offering higher bandwidths, and with most manufacturers transitioning to DDR2 now we expect to see further DDR2 price cuts.

With AM2 you are investing in memory that will have a longer lifespan and a motherboard that will have a better upgrade path than Socket-939 today. The only other advantage other than a more secure upgrade path that AM2 offers is AMD's upcoming Energy Efficient desktop CPUs. We're particularly intrigued by the 35W Athlon 64 X2 3800+; if you thought AMD's processors were cool and quiet, a 35W X2 should blow you away. (It might overclock really nicely as well!)

The disheartening news for AMD and its fans alike is that if AM2 can't offer significant performance increases over what we have now, then all Intel has to do is execute Conroe on schedule, delivering the performance we've been promised and 2006 will be painted blue. AMD has been telling us that 2007 is the year we'll see major architectural changes to their processors, so AM2 may very well be as good as it gets for now. That's still very good, of course - the fastest X2 chips still outperform the fastest Pentium D chips - but it looks like after three years K8 may finally get some competition for the performance crown.

Does AM2's Performance Make Sense?
POST A COMMENT

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. Reply
  • 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? Reply
  • tk109 - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link

    So they basicly have no answer to Conroe... Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • Shintai - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link

    How did Prescott become Gen 8? Its a northwood with 64bit

    Conroe is Gen 8. So your table should say K8 (Gen8) vs Conroe (Gen8)
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now