AMD Socket-AM2: Same Performance, Faster Memory, Lower Power
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 23, 2006 12:14 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Question on Everyone's Mind: Is AM2 Faster?
We've structured this CPU review a little different than in our past, organizing the content into answers to a series of questions that we had about Socket-AM2 and the performance of the platform. The first question on everyone's mind is, of course, is Socket-AM2 any faster than Socket-939. When we previewed AM2 we concluded that no, it wasn't, however we were using pre-release hardware and it was possible that the performance had changed since then. But the following statement from AMD pretty much confirmed exactly what we expected:
"A fair expectation for performance gain from 939-pin to AM2 is about 1% or more across various application-based benchmarks. That assumes equal model numbers for processors and an equal configuration. This also assumes premium memory is used for each configuration."
With AMD telling us that we should expect about a 1% increase in performance, it doesn't look like Socket-AM2 will have much to offer in the way of performance. Of course we needed to confirm for ourselves, and the table below shows just that:
| Benchmark - Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | Socket-939 (DDR-400) | Socket-AM2 (DDR2-800) | % Advantage (Socket-AM2) |
| Cinebench 9.5 Multi-Core Rendering Test | 660 | 658 | 0% |
| 3dsmax 7 | 2.79 | 2.78 | 0% |
| Adobe Photoshop CS2 | 183.2 s | 180.2 s | +1.6% |
| DivX 6.1 | 54 fps | 54 fps | 0% |
| WME9 | 42.2 fps | 42.7 fps | +1.2% |
| Quicktime 7.0.4 (H.264) | 3.12 min | 3.10 min | +0.1% |
| iTunes 6.0.1.4 (MP3) | 35 s | 35 s | 0% |
| Quake 4 - 10x7 (SMP) | 133.1 fps | 138.6 fps | +4.0% |
| Oblivion - 10x7 | 56.1 fps | 58.0 fps | +3.3% |
| F.E.A.R. - 10x7 | 114 fps | 116 fps | +1.8% |
| ScienceMark 2.0 (Bandwidth) | 5397 MB/s | 6844 MB/s | +27% |
| ScienceMark 2.0 (Latency 512-byte stride) | 47.3 ns | 42.72 ns | +9.7% |
The numbers we're seeing here today for Socket-939 vs. Socket-AM2 are virtually identical to what we saw last month in our preview. Socket-AM2 doesn't appear to offer any tangible improvement in performance except for within certain games and of course in the memory bandwidth and latency tests. Thankfully, on final hardware, we're at least not seeing any drop in performance.
The good news is that if you've just invested in a new Socket-939 platform, you're not leaving any performance behind by not having an AM2 system. The bad news is that, for AMD, the only performance increases this launch will bring are because of the speed bumps of the Athlon 64 FX-62 and the X2 5000+.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
83 Comments
View All Comments
Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Sounds conceiveable indeed. Though, the latter option would probably blow TDP out of proportion on 90nm.
mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Yeah, that is a problem but Anand did say "trick up its sleeve" so maybe they have one last 90 nm manufacturing process that's better than today's. I've read some articles about L3 cache coming for AMD and one inquirer.net article (take with grain of salt) that says AMD will ramp clock speeds fast. Maybe the trick will have something to do with these factors. Who knows?darkdemyze - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Whatever it is I'm interested in reading about itRegs - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Whatever it is, it's going to be expensive.TrogdorJW - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Actually, I was sort of thinking that the "stopgap solution" might be to cut prices. God only knows that I would love to see a $200 X2 processor!Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Well, they will have to drop prices at some point after core 2 is actually available.xFlankerx - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
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.
Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
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.
rADo2 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Sorry, links again:Intel Conroe @ 3.9GHz: SuperPI 1M - 12.984s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...
AMD FX-57 @ 4.2GHz: SuperPI 1M - 21.992s
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...
MadAd - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link
Try measuring like for like and then come back with your silly benchmark comparison. EG use a superpi data size that will fit on BOTH cpus caches, not just conroes and then compare performance.With the FX57 having just a 1M cache its bullsht smoke and mirrors saying the 1M superpi is slower, o rly? perhaps thats because it takes more than 1M to hold both the feature and data sets on a 1M superpi.
muppet