The best video card for AMD Phenom X6 and AMD Athlon X4 processors (Socket AM3 and FM1). Processors amd phenom ii series

Introduction

Overclocking has long been the number one tool for enthusiasts to increase system performance without spending extra money. And since motherboard manufacturers (and even CPU manufacturers themselves) have begun to take this market seriously, features and products have emerged that allow any user, be it a beginner or a hardcore pro, to overclock their processors quite comfortably.

But how far can you go? Efficiency has recently become as important a topic as performance, and it's no secret that power consumption skyrockets at high overclocked frequencies when voltage has to be increased to improve stability.

Phenom vs Core 2

AMD's difficult times began when Intel released a line of Core 2 processors in 2006 year. Core 2 Duo processors were far superior to the Athlon 64 X2, and quad-core Phenom, introduced at the end of 2007, could not outperform quad-core Core 2 Quad processors, despite the theoretically superior architecture on a monolithic chip. We specially held core-to-core analysis of all popular AMD models and found that the Phenom Stars architecture was indeed an important step forward, even if not as revolutionary. AMD added in early 2008 Triple-core Phenom X3 processors, which helped the company remain competitive in the mass market, and all this was accompanied by falling prices. The range of processors was quite good, and AMD was really able to provide a nice performance/price ratio, even if Intel came out ahead in terms of performance and efficiency.

Return of AMD Phenom II

Phenom II processors are the top of AMD's portfolio, they have finally allowed AMD to take a stronger competitive position, thanks in no small part to the state-of-the-art 45nm DSL SOI process technology. Idle power consumption has been reduced, and clock speeds can be increased to a point where Phenom II processors perform nearly as well as Intel Core 2 Quad processors. Unfortunately, Intel has already switched to next generation Core i7 architecture, which strengthened its leadership in productivity and efficiency. However, Phenom II processors generally provide similar performance at comparable prices, and Socket AM2+ or AM3 platforms (DDR2 or DDR3) are usually more affordable than Intel 4x chipset lines.

What is the ideal frequency for the Phenom?

We took the current flagship Phenom II X4 940 and ran it at different clock speeds, both lower and higher than stock, to determine the clock speed at which the architecture provides the best balance between performance and power consumption.

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition (BE)

While there are many AMD Phenom II processor options on the market, we went with the Phenom II X4 940 for several reasons. We didn't want to take on the first generation of Phenom processors because they were still based on AMD's 65nm process, which couldn't compete with the more advanced 45nm Phenom II process in terms of performance and efficiency.

Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition at 3 GHz is the fastest AMD CPU model with an unlocked multiplier, which allows you to reduce it or increase it. This allowed us, in particular, to emulate the Phenom II X4 920 at 2.8 GHz. In the near future, we plan to conduct similar types of tests with the Intel Core i7 920 system. For the Intel platform, we chose the entry-level i7 920 processor to avoid the significantly more expensive high-speed Intel models. In the case of AMD, even the Phenom II X4 940 processor is not that expensive, so such concerns did not arise.

Phenom II models

Phenom II X4 is a modern high-end processor for desktop PCs, which, in many respects, was a consequence of AMD's transition from 65 nm to 45 nm process technology. The L2 cache has increased from 2 MB for Phenom processors to 4 MB (Socket AM3 models) or even 6 MB (Socket AM2+ models).

The die area of ​​all Phenom II models is 285 mm², although the actual cache configuration may vary to increase chip yield. A simple example: a quad-core processor with a faulty core can be modified and sold as a triple-core processor. The following table lists all currently available quad-core Phenom II X4 processors.

Model Phenom II X4	Platform	Clock frequency	Number of cores	L2 cache	L3 cache	TDP
940	Socket AM2+ (DDR2)	3.0 GHz	4		6 MB total	125 W
920	Socket AM2+ (DDR2)	2.8 GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	6 MB total	125 W
910	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.6 GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	6 MB total	95 W
810	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.6 GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	4 MB shared	95 W
805	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.5 GHz	4	512 KB per core (2 MB total)	4 MB shared	95 W

The following table shows the currently available tri-core Phenom II X3 processors.

Model Phenom II X3	Platform	Clock frequency	Number of cores	L2 cache	L3 cache	TDP
720	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.8 GHz	3		6 MB total	95 W
710	Socket AM3 (DDR3)	2.6 GHz	3	512 KB per core (1.5 MB total)	6 MB total	95 W

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Flexible CPU selection

AMD processors still use the HyperTransport channel to communicate with the chipset; they also have a dual-channel memory controller built into the chip. AMD has decided to release 45nm Phenom II processors with support for DDR2 and DDR3 memory, while both types are technically based on the same technology.

Socket AM2+ is AMD's latest socket for processors with DDR2 support. Therefore, all AM2+ motherboards will support processors that were designed for the 940-pin socket, as long as the motherboard has support in that model's BIOS.

New processors with an integrated DDR3 memory controller require Socket AM3, which is a modified version of the previous 940-pin socket that supports DDR3 memory. The nice thing here is that you can buy a Phenom II processor for Socket AM3 and install it in a Socket AM2+ system with DDR2 memory. At the same time, you will not be able to make the Phenom II work under Socket AM2+ in Socket AM3, since the latter physically uses only 938 of the 940 pins.

Overclocking and power consumption

All Phenom II processors have fully modern power consumption characteristics. Available chipsets include models from AMD and nVidia (AMD 780G, 790GX, 790FX and nVidia nForce 750i, 780, i790i SLI) that require less power than full-featured Intel chipsets - usually because the memory controller is part of the processor, which Improves system power consumption when idle. However, peak power consumption is not very different from Intel platforms.

We were able to overclock several Phenom II X4 processors for Socket AM2+ to almost 4 GHz, but all the processors we visited turned off the Cool"n"Quiet function when operating at 3.8 GHz or slightly higher. This feature reduces the processor frequency and voltage when it is idle, allowing the CPU to run cooler and consume less power. This caused problems with efficiency testing, since the results at 3.8 GHz could not be directly compared to lower frequencies, where Cool"n"Quiet technology worked fine. According to AMD, this behavior is quite justified due to the manual selection of higher multipliers.

Platform: Jetway HA07 Ultra on AMD 790GX chipset

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Many motherboard manufacturers have released different products based on AMD 790GX chipset, but this time we decided to take not the most famous brand. By the way, in the near future we will present a review of motherboards for Socket AM3 based on the 790FX chipset.

The Jetway HA07 Ultra "Hummer" is an enthusiast motherboard that is aimed at ATI CrossFire graphics configurations. The chipset allows the motherboard to work with two x16 PCI Express slots of eight lanes each. Additionally, the 790GX has six additional PCI Express lanes that can be used for expansion cards. Because AMD used the PCI Express 2.0 standard, each lane provides twice the bandwidth of PCI Express 1.1 (250 MB/s per lane in each direction for 1.1, 500 MB/s for 2.0).

Click on the picture to enlarge.

Although the 790GX chipset is aimed at enthusiasts, it includes integrated graphics. HA07 Ultra provides standard VGA and DVI ports, there is also additional Side-Port memory chip, which increases 3D performance by allowing the graphics core to combine shared memory (from PC RAM) and separate Side-Port. After installing a separate graphics card, the integrated graphics core based on the Radeon HD 3300 can be turned off or used in SurroundView mode.

The HA07 Ultra motherboard turned out to be more energy efficient than the other two motherboards we had on hand when we started testing. Of course, the small number of additional components, as well as the six-phase voltage regulator, has a positive impact on power consumption, as other systems required 10-15 W more at idle and under peak load. The Jetway board still provides an UltraATA/133 controller for legacy drives, as well as a floppy drive connector that connects to AMD's SB750 southbridge. Both connectors are located next to four DDR2 memory slots and a connector for connecting a power supply. That is, ordinary cable loops will be enough to connect the drives in the upper compartments of the tower housing.

AMD 790GX chipset diagram. Click on the picture to enlarge.

Jetway also used a heatpipe cooling system for the voltage regulators and the 790GX chipset. And while it's not as massive or huge as some other motherboards, it gets the job done considering the relative efficiency of the platform itself.

Processor Phenom II X4 20, the price of a new one on Amazon and ebay is 6,435 rubles, which is equal to $111.

Number of cores - 4.

The base frequency of the Phenom II X4 20 cores is 3.3 GHz. The maximum frequency in AMD Turbo Core mode reaches 3.3 GHz.

Price in Russia

Want to buy Phenom II X4 20 cheap? Look at the list of stores that already sell the processor in your city.

AMD Phenom II X4 20 test

The data comes from user tests who tested their systems both overclocked and unoverclocked. Thus, you see the average values ​​​​corresponding to the processor.

Numerical speed

Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with a small number of fast cores will be great for gaming, but will be inferior to a system with a large number of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

We believe that a processor with at least 4 cores/4 threads is suitable for a budget gaming computer. At the same time, some games can load it at 100% and slow down, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

Ideally, the buyer should aim for a minimum of 6/6 or 6/12, but keep in mind that systems with more than 16 threads are currently only suitable for professional applications.

The data is obtained from tests of users who tested their systems both overclocked (the maximum value in the table) and without (the minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, with the color bar indicating its position among all systems tested.

Accessories

We have compiled a list of components that users most often choose when assembling a computer based on the Phenom II X4 20. Also, with these components the best test results and stable operation are achieved.

The most popular config: motherboard for AMD Phenom II X4 20 - Dell XPS One 2710, video card - Radeon HD 6700.

Characteristics

Basic

Manufacturer	AMD
Date of issue Month and year the processor went on sale.	03-2015
Cores Number of physical cores.	4
Streams Number of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees.	4
Base frequency Guaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher frequency.	3.3 GHz
Turbo frequency Maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers have given the processor the ability to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, thereby increasing operating speed. It greatly affects the speed in games and applications that require CPU frequency.	3.3 GHz

This time we will limit ourselves to the briefest possible theoretical introduction: we learned about the ideas contained in the AMD K10 core and Phenom processors long before the release of the processors themselves, several years ago. Many (note, not only fans who just want their favorite company to win), but technically very knowledgeable specialists in matters of processor architecture, were waiting for these processors. It is justified (from a theoretical point of view) to expect, albeit not devastating for the competitor, but at least interesting results: somewhere there is a gain, at least thanks to the extended floating point calculation unit and the native quad-core design, somewhere equality, somewhere - then, of course, a lag, but overall a competitive result. After all, competitors have different architectural approaches, but they have their own trump cards.

After the release of Phenom, whose results were clearly lower than expected, at first many wondered: why exactly is this so? Then, as they say, everyone got used to it, moreover, now Phenom processors are quite well accepted by the market, are in demand, and many users are probably even happy that, due to price wars, these processors have received such affordable prices, which, at a minimum, are justified by their performance. In Phenom II, as we also learned long before the release of the processors themselves, the changes that affect the performance seem to promise little: the amount of third-level cache memory has been tripled and frequencies have been raised thanks to the transition to a 45 nm process technology. There is, however, a mention of architectural optimizations, although which ones are not specified. If such announcements were made regarding a long-polished processor core, from which all the juice had already been squeezed out during the release of numerous revisions, one would hardly expect anything interesting. But in this case, the thought quite naturally arises: what if these measures turn out to be enough to unlock potential that has not been adequately realized before? Let's see what actually happened.

We tested the older model with a frequency of 3.0 GHz and an unlocked multiplier, and at the same time a processor with index 920 with a frequency of 2.8 GHz was announced. The processors are installed in the Socket AM2+ socket, that is, they are completely oriented towards the platform formed for Phenom processors. The boards only require a BIOS update, and most manufacturers made the corresponding versions publicly available back in November, or even October, last year.

The recommended price of the Phenom II X4 940 is $275, so as a competitor for comparison in tests, it is tempting to take the results of the Core i7 920, whose recommended price is only $5 higher. Moreover, exactly in the configuration that was used in testing, with Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading technologies enabled. Using the auto-overclocking function may not seem entirely fair, since Phenom also has overclocking potential and the ability to separately control processor multipliers for cores, but we will assume that this factor is balanced by installing 3 GB of memory, while other processors are tested at 4 GB. After all, our goal is to get as close as possible to the real conditions in which the processors themselves will operate, and it is unlikely that any of the Core i7 users will disable Turbo Boost in practice, while everyone will probably try to use a three-channel controller, but will immediately splurge on a kit in 6 GB will probably only be accepted by users of the extreme version, and not by the younger version in the line.

But, it should be borne in mind that even with this limitation, the platform as a whole, including the board and compatible memory, for the Core i7 is still very, very expensive, so in practice, most likely, most users will compare the Phenom II with the much more popular Core 2 Quad, so we chose a processor based on the Yorkfield core (Q9300) as our second competitor. From a research point of view, of course, it will be interesting to see how the new top model looks against the background of older representatives from the Phenom line (9850) and historical competitors on the Kentsfield core (Q6600). It should also be noted that in a number of tests dual-core processors still demonstrate very good performance, sometimes showing results at the level of more expensive quad-core processors. However, it is not entirely correct to compare these results directly; or rather, they are valid for synthetic (or rather sterile) conditions of test benches, when both dual-core cores can be guaranteed to be used to solve the test problem. In reality, background processes, if they do not take up significant resources, at least, to one or another, weakly predictable degree, “interfere” with their data in the cache memory. At the same time, both Phenom, Phenom II, and Core i7 (especially models with an unlocked multiplier) have excellent capabilities for selective overclocking of processor cores, so turning them into high-frequency dual- or triple-core processors, if a specific task requires it, is not a problem. difficulties.

Test bench configuration

CPU	Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition	Phenom II X4 940	Core 2 Quad Q6600	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Core i7 920
Kernel name	Agena	Deneb	Kentsfield	Yorkfield	Bloomfield
Production technology	65 nm	45 nm	65 nm	45 nm	45 nm
Core frequency, GHz	2,5	3,0	2,4	2,5	2,66 (***)
Number of cores	4	4	4	4	4
L1 cache, I/D, KB	64/64	64/64	32/32	32/32	32/32
L2 cache, KB	4 x 512	4 x 512	2 x 4096	2 x 3072	4 x 256
L3 cache, KB	2048	6144	-	-	8192
RAM (*)	DDR2-1066	DDR2-1066	-	-	DDR3-1066
Multiplication factor	12,5 (**)	15 (**)	9	7,5	20
Socket	AM2+	AM2+	LGA775	LGA775	LGA1366
TDP	125 W	125 W	95 W	95 W	130 W
Price	N/A(0)	N/A(0)	N/A(0)	N/A()	N/A()

(*) maximum frequency supported by the memory controller in the processor, it is permissible to set a lower frequency provided by this memory standard (for example, DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 for processors supporting DDR2-1066), for processors with LGA775 socket the frequency and type of memory are determined chipset used
(**) unlocked for user overclocking capability
(***) when the Turbo Boost “auto-overclocking” function is activated (which is implied by default), the actual frequency of individual cores increases relative to the nominal up to 2.8–2.93 GHz, depending on the load, so it is incorrect to directly compare this value with fixed frequencies of other processors

• memory capacity on stands: 4 GB (3 GB for Core i7 920);
• hard drive: Samsung HD401LJ (SATA-2);
• coolers: Thermaltake TMG i1, TMG a1;
• power supply: Cooler Master RS-A00-EMBA.

Testing

The performance testing methodology (list of software used and testing conditions) is described in detail in the article. For ease of perception, the results in the diagrams are presented as percentages (the result of the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 in each test is taken as 100%). Detailed results in absolute values ​​are available in the form of a table in Microsoft Excel format, which shows all previously tested processors.

3D modeling packages

Even looking at the first diagram, one can assume that Phenom II is quite serious about fighting for its place in the sun and, in any case, being a worthy competitor to the Core 2 Quad. If you look at the detailed results, you get the idea that the matter will not stop there. For example, in Lightwave, rendering takes less time than on the Core i7 920, and in terms of rendering speed in Maya, the Phenom II is faster than the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (here, however, the Core i7 wins back). In a word, there is no longer talk of any “one-sided game”, and we will not be surprised if in some tests the Phenom II competes not only with competitors approximately equal in price, but also with more expensive ones.

CAD/CAM packages

A similar arrangement, with the only difference being that the “staircase” has become flatter. And if we take into account that this group of tests is quite conservative and weakly uses more than two cores, therefore the auto-overclocking (Turbo Boost) of the Core i7 gets the opportunity to prove itself. It is quite natural to assume that by similarly overclocking a couple of cores in the Phenom II, we can further reduce the existing difference. Fortunately, the ability to independently control multipliers of processor cores is available in Phenom initially, although auto-overclocking is not implemented at the hardware level, but thanks to proprietary utilities it is implemented very conveniently (including, the user can determine the desired level and method of overclocking, which will be automatically selected when starting it or other application). This requires a little more fiddling during the initial setup, but is quite a fun experience in itself, and the result can be more interesting from a performance point of view than any automatic method. We examined the topic of overclocking the Phenom II in detail in the corresponding article, but now let's continue testing at the standard frequency.

Compilation

Moreover, here awaits us the first convincing victory over both rivals, without any acceleration.

Professional work with photographs

However, it is still too early for AMD fans to get the champagne. Traditionally favoring Intel products, the graphics editor Adobe Photoshop is simply obliged to support at least the Core i7, which it successfully does. However, in a confrontation with the Q9300, the Phenom II continues to confidently control the situation.

Science and mathematics packages

In this subgroup, Phenom II takes first place among all previously tested processors in Maple, and in Mathematica it is at the same level as the leaders. But then we look at the MATLAB results, and they are what make the overall result not so impressive. We have already written in detail about the problems with this test. In this case, testing is carried out on the same version of the library for all processors (mkl.dll), since this is the solution used in the next version of this program (2008b), that is, recommended by the developers themselves, although it is obvious that this approach is far from optimal. At the same time, it cannot be said that the built-in benchmark in this test completely measures the weather on Mars, although the spread between the results taken from different series of measurements is somewhat large for a reliable comparison of processors with similar performance. Also, it has not yet been possible to establish to what extent it reflects at least typical tasks for MATLAB users themselves. But these are questions that obviously relate not to the topic of this testing, but to improving the methodology. From a practical point of view, you just need to keep in mind that in the other two tests, the results of the Phenom II X4 940 are close to the Core i7 920, and there is no talk of lagging behind the Q9300, even formally. So the potential of the Phenom II X4 940 as a mathematical “solver” is quite good.

Web server

In this category of tasks, AMD processors have performed successfully before; it is easy to see that the Phenom 9850 has the best result in this subtest among the results in all other categories. And Phenom II is actively developing this success. At the same time, it is in this test that the Q9300 is only formally superior to the Q6600, hence the maximum gap between the Phenom II X4 940 and the Q9300, also in comparison with the results in all other subgroups.

Overall "professional" score

To be precise, the result of the Phenom II X4 940 was lower than that of the Core i7 by 4.38%, but it managed to outperform the Q9300 more significantly - by 7.55%.

Archivers

If you look at the detailed results, we find that the Phenom II and Core i7 are equal in the 7-Zip and WinRAR archivers, and the advantage of the Intel processor recorded in the final rating is ensured by a slight difference (less than 10 seconds) in single-threaded Ultimate ZIP, where Turbo Boost manifests itself to the maximum. So, from a practical point of view, these processors can be considered equivalent and have secured a significant lead over the rest of the “group of pursuers”.

Media encoding

We observe almost the same slender ladder as in the very first diagram. And what’s typical is that the detailed results again give reason to rejoice for those who are reviewing reviews of new processors, hoping to see that the new product will reach “new heights” in some tests, that is, demonstrate a result that is clearly superior to its competitors. In Canopus ProCoder, the honor of the Core i7 (and Intel processors in general) can now probably be defended only by the older models from this line. Of course, there are also tests where the Phenom II is not so strong (it even formally lags behind the Q9300 in one test (XviD). Well, on average, the result presented in the diagram is obtained.

The situation is very pleasant for a tester, because, strictly speaking, the point of reviewing processors appears precisely when there are, on average, equally strong competing models on the market. But they differ in architectural and technological parameters, and due to this very difference, they have their own characteristics, which allow us to say that this processor is especially good for those who spend all day and night in Photoshop, and the other is simply a “must have” for those who are partial to games . By the way, what do we get in games...

Games

But it turns out just great for the Phenom II! However, victory in gaming tests, unlike other successes, was perhaps the easiest to predict. After all, upon closer examination, the Phenom 9850 cannot at all be called some kind of unambiguous outsider, and many testers noted a funny phenomenon (pardon the pun) when even in cases where the Phenom lost at low resolutions, as the graphics settings and resolution increased There was not only a completely natural limitation of performance to the resources of the video card, but also a small but noticeable advantage of the AMD platform. And if you remember the comparisons between Phenom and Athlon, it was in games that the advantages of the new architecture were very clearly manifested. It is now obvious that the potential of the K10 architecture of the Phenom itself, for some reason, was far from fully revealed, and seeing how this potential begins to be demonstrated in the case of the Phenom II, it is quite logical to expect that tangible progress will be found on the gaming front. At the same time, for the Core i7, games turned out to be the weak point, where the new core shows minimal advantage over the previous one.

Perhaps AMD already has something to congratulate in the new year, which is even somehow symbolic, considering that last year the company’s products that stood out the most in tests were graphics processors from the Radeon HD4800 series. And for AMD’s gaming platform to take on an ideologically complete form, a processor was required that, like the HD4850/HD4870, would be positioned for a mid-range budget, but would provide gaming comfort at the level of more expensive competitors. Of course, by Phenom II in this case we mean the line as a whole, since there is reason to assume that younger quad-core, and possibly triple- and even dual-core models will be attractive for gaming computers (of course, in combination with video cards of different levels, since For a gaming computer, the issue of balancing the performance of these components is fundamental). As for the Phenom II X4 940 under consideration, it will be difficult for extreme versions of the Core i7 to significantly outperform this processor, so many who want to get maximum performance in games will also choose the Phenom II (probably not without thoughts of overclocking) , and the amount saved will significantly facilitate the purchase of components of some 3-Way SLI or Quad CrossFire.

Amateur work with photographs

Probably, Phenom II liked building dynamic images in games so much that when processing the same array of photos with five different photo editors, he got bored and lost! But seriously, it is quite expected to see less expressive behavior in this subtest, because even for Phenom from the “first edition” the result here is not impressive, and, apparently, no fundamental differences were introduced at the microarchitecture level in Phenom II. At the same time, the Core i7, which has already demonstrated its skills when working with photographs in Photoshop, gets the opportunity to demonstrate a similar advantage here. What can I say? To some extent, this subtest still imitates professional work (after all, it is not typical for amateur photo editing to process gigabytes of photos in batch mode). As for any simple operations on single photographs taken from any megapixel camera, this is all performed in these graphic editors in real time, that is, instantly, on any of the processors participating in testing, and even weaker ones. Of course, this in no way diminishes the merits of the Core i7 from a testing point of view, and, on the contrary, shows that in a number of tasks that are explicitly tied to integer calculations, it is objectively difficult to “butt heads” with this processor. Most likely, AMD will not try to compete in such applications head-on, increasing the frequency, cache, and even more so, urgently redesigning the core, which is very successful in other aspects, and will simply “go around”, as a plugin for Photoshop is already being prepared that will allow use video card resources. Which, of course, for AMD itself, as a manufacturer of graphics processors, is very tempting, and as a video card that will accelerate such calculations at an unprecedented speed, they promise that a very average one, that is, inexpensive, will do. Let's see.

Overall amateur score

But the “average temperature in the hospital” looks so calm and, in contrast to the results in individual subgroups, everyday, and since the author has run out of original comments, those who wish can offer their options on the forum, the most successful one will be added to the article :)

conclusions

First of all, testing showed that, very gratifying for users and testers, and for the IT industry in general, the fact that competition in the central processor market is again becoming very interesting. Phenom II was clearly a success, and in a number of problems we can talk about this without even linking the assessment to conversations about cost.

However, AMD is not going to be greedy, that is, the recommended cost of the older Phenom II model is set lower than that of the younger Core i7, although, as already noted, if we take into account the cost of the platform (motherboard and memory), comparison with processors from the line is much more appropriate Core 2 Quad, and here AMD’s advantage is obvious (and on average remains even if we take the more expensive Q9400/Q9450 as processors). And, for example, in games, only “extreme” models from Intel, the price of which is 4-5 times higher, can compete with new AMD processors. Moreover, last year AMD worked very fruitfully to improve the functionality of chipsets under its brand (especially with integrated graphics), which we wrote about in detail. And with the expansion of the choice of processors with attractive characteristics, these developments will be able to be appreciated by a larger number of users. Of course, the high results of Phenom II will please those who have already purchased a computer on the Socket AM2+ platform (with an Athlon or Phenom processor) and will think about an upgrade in the future.

The processor is also interesting for overclocking enthusiasts (we will return to this issue in more detail); it should also be noted that the average heat dissipation has clearly decreased due to the transition to a 45 nm process technology. AMD claims that by 35-50% depending on the load (for processors with a declared TDP = 125 W from the previous and new line), for the sake of experiment we installed a box cooler from the Phenom 9550, designed for a 95 W thermal package, and were able to run a complete set of tests, and only in rare cases did the cooler reach maximum speed. Of course, this is a purely rough test, if only because the cooler control algorithm can be adjusted independently, but we must keep in mind that in general any power consumption tests based on the results of testing a single processor instance are for reference only. The main practical conclusion is that even for older Phenom II models, obviously, it will not be difficult to organize inexpensive, low-noise cooling, including during moderate overclocking (and extreme sports enthusiasts, as always, are free to find completely silent, some kind of liquid etc). Most users will be quite satisfied with the performance of the standard cooler (by the way, copper, with heat pipes) included in the package. And, apparently, AMD will not have any difficulties or delays in converting processors to a 95 W thermal package, which is planned simultaneously with the release of the Socket AM3 platform and the expansion of the model range.

Since we are talking about plans, then simultaneously with the next wave of chipsets, it is logical to expect the release of boards with Socket AM3 connector and, accordingly, processors that differ from the current ones by supporting dual-channel DDR3-1333. Moreover, support for DDR2 will also remain, that is, these processors can also be installed on boards with the Socket AM2+ connector, accordingly, it is not difficult to assume that the migration will be even smoother than the transition from Socket 939 to AM2. Most likely, the actual benefits of the new type of memory will appear only in certain applications. And it’s even more likely that the incentive to choose AM3 when choosing components for a new computer will be, for example, some functional advantages of new chipsets (associated, for example, with an integrated video core) and simply interesting new board models. At the same time, it is not at all surprising if owners of modern high-quality motherboards for AM2+ do not rush to upgrade the board and memory when purchasing an AM3 processor. By the way, the smooth migration described above seems self-evident, because most readers interested in the topic of processors and platforms have, of course, heard about it more than once, since it became known long before the release of the first version of Phenom. In fact, maintaining the electrical and logical compatibility of the connectors, and even more so the support of different types of memory by the processor controller, certainly implies many original technical solutions. And we, perhaps, will even be able to appreciate all this. Another reason to rejoice at the results of Phenom II, since all the advantages associated with the convenience of migration only make sense if the subject of the upgrade itself is interesting.

IntroductionContinuing the series of announcements of processors based on the new 45-nm Deneb core, AMD today introduces several new models aimed at the mid-price segment. Thus, the “pioneers” of the Phenom II family that we reviewed earlier, having processor numbers 940 and 920, remain the senior models in AMD products, but now the company’s position will be strengthened by several more processors, the production of which uses a more modern technological process. More specifically, today AMD is introducing five 45-nm processors: three quad-core ones - Phenom II X4 910, 810 and 805, as well as two triple-core ones - Phenom II X3 720 and 710. However, the main intrigue of this announcement is not the appearance of the next relatively inexpensive and at the same time fast processors. Much more interesting is that the models released on the market today have a new design - Socket AM3.

Let us remember that the main goal of transferring AMD processors to the Socket AM3 platform is to implement support for more modern and faster DDR3 SDRAM. At the same time, such Socket AM3 processors also retain compatibility with the existing Socket AM2+ infrastructure. It turns out that the new Phenom II models have a universal memory controller that can work with DDR2 or DDR3 SDRAM, depending on which motherboard it is installed in. However, such versatility is not at all surprising: we all remember how easily motherboard manufacturers once developed products that supported DDR2 SDRAM, basing them on LGA775 X-series chipsets designed to work with DDR3 SDRAM. Continuity, which is a priority when changing memory standards, determines compatibility between DDR2 and DDR3 at the logical level, which allows engineers to support both technologies at once with minimal cost.

At the same time, with all its appearance, AMD makes it clear to us that we should not expect too much from the new processor socket and DDR3 memory. Yes, DDR3 SDRAM has higher frequencies, but it is also characterized by increased latencies, which, as is known, also significantly affect the speed of platforms with AMD processors. Apparently, guided by these very considerations, AMD has not yet begun to transfer older Phenom II models to Socket AM3, which remain available exclusively in Socket AM2+ variants. So for now, only mid-level models can boast of compatibility with Socket AM3 for which, frankly speaking, the ability to work with high-speed and expensive memory is not so relevant.

The fact that the Phenom II X4 940 and 920, released just a month ago, turned out to be incompatible with the new Socket AM3 platform, obviously, there are some more compelling reasons, in addition to the lack of a noticeable increase in performance. And these reasons are not difficult to see if you get acquainted with the characteristics of the models presented today in more detail. The fact is that, by switching to a new processor socket, AMD decided to make its processors more economical: for all five of today's new products, the maximum heat dissipation level is set not at 125 W, as for the older Phenom II, but at 95 W. All quad-core Intel processors belonging to the Core 2 Quad family have exactly the same heat dissipation rating. However, apparently, the parity in the maximum calculated thermal characteristics of the LGA775 and Socket AM3 platforms will not last long, since over the next couple of months AMD is going to introduce faster and less economical processors than the Phenom II X4 910 and 810.

From all that has been said, it follows that the compatibility of the processors being introduced today with the new Socket AM3 socket and with DDR3 memory does not solve much from the point of view of ordinary consumers. The presented mid-price range models in the vast majority of cases will fit into the Socket AM2+ infrastructure and will be used with the widespread and inexpensive DDR2 SDRAM. AMD does not yet offer high-performance modifications of the Phenom II, which would be really interesting to use on Socket AM3 platforms. However, for us this is not a reason to close our eyes to a new promising platform, to which we decided to devote a separate article. In this article, we will get acquainted with the features of the new processor socket, and at the same time we will test one of the new Socket AM3 processors - the Phenom II X4 810.

Phenom II family: diversity of species

First of all, we decided to put together all the information about AMD processors produced using the 45 nm process technology and marketed under the Phenom II brand. The need for a single reference table is due to the fact that this series, which currently includes seven processors, has turned out to be very contradictory: it consists of models with different numbers of cores, with different purposes, compatibility with different platforms, and so on.

According to earlier plans, AMD was going to introduce another Socket AM3 processor - the Phenom II X4 925, but at the moment its release has not taken place. A possible reason for this is problems with fitting its heat output into the 95-watt thermal package. And taking into account the fact that the next model, the Phenom II X4 910, although formally announced, is actually available only to AMD’s OEM partners, the senior processor in the Socket AM3 version, which will be available in stores in the near future, turns out to be the Phenom II X4 810 This is precisely what explains the participation of this model in our tests.

The expansion of the Phenom II model range leads to the fact that the new nomenclature of processor ratings adopted by AMD also becomes clear. Thus, a series of ratings characterize the main characteristics of processors. And if we add to the available data information about future processor models with 45 nm cores, we get a completely harmonious and logical sequence:

900 series - quad-core processors with 6 MB L3 cache;
800 series - quad-core processors with 4 MB L3 cache;
700 series - three-core processors with 6 MB L3 cache;
600 series - quad-core processors without L3 cache;
400 series - three-core processors without L3 cache;
200 series - dual-core processors.

Information about the 200, 400 and 600 series is preliminary. The release of such processors, judging by available data, is scheduled for the second quarter of this year.

Socket AM3 platform

By introducing the new Socket AM3 platform, AMD's first goal is to introduce support for modern DDR3 SDRAM memory in systems based on Phenom II processors. Such support has been available in competitor platforms for more than a year and a half, but AMD previously considered the transition to a new type of memory untimely due to its high cost. By now, the situation has changed a lot, prices for DDR3 modules have dropped significantly, and this has pushed AMD to introduce and develop a new type of processor socket on the market.

However, unlike its main rival, AMD has rarely made drastic changes in the design of the platform lately. The company's engineers make every effort to ensure a painless migration from one platform to another. This tactic is especially relevant in light of the current realities, when AMD processors do not have many advantages compared to Intel products. This is precisely what makes the new platform interesting: AMD developers were able to offer such a scheme for upgrading the memory controller built into their own processors, in which neither old nor new adherents of the Athlon and Phenom brands should be dissatisfied.

The fact that the Socket AM3 platform is in many ways similar to its predecessor can be understood just by a quick glance at the boards and processors in the new design. AMD not only did not convert its chips to LGA packaging, but moreover, the processors even retained the same geometric dimensions, and the number of their contacts remained virtually unchanged. Due to the fact that AMD has placed the ideas of continuity and compatibility at the forefront, it is possible to distinguish a Socket AM3 processor from its Socket AM2+ brother only with a very careful examination.

Left - Socket AM2+ processor, right - Socket AM3 processor

The differences between Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 processors are visible only from the “belly” side. From the above photo you can see that the number of contacts on Socket AM3 has decreased by two, so now there are 938 of them.

A similar picture can be seen if you compare the connectors on motherboards.

Left - Socket AM2+, right - Socket AM3

As you can easily see, mechanically, processors in the Socket AM3 version can be installed in Socket AM2+, while a Socket AM2+ processor simply cannot be inserted into a Socket AM3 motherboard due to the “extra” two contacts. This mechanical compatibility also reflects logical compatibility. New Socket AM3 processors have a universal memory controller that supports both DDR2 and DDR3 SDRAM. The specific type of memory used in each case is determined solely by the DIMM slots on the motherboard. In Socket AM2+ boards it is DDR2, in Socket AM3 it is DDR3 SDRAM. Older Socket AM2+ processors do not have such versatility; they can only work with DDR2 SDRAM, which is why they were deprived of mechanical compatibility with the new processor socket.

Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 retain continuity in many other aspects. By matching the sizes of sockets and processors, AMD was able to guarantee that the same processor coolers could be used on both platforms. Even the scheme of their fastening has not been transformed.

The same applies to microarchitecture features: processors with Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 versions differ only in the memory controller. All other nodes, including the HyperTransport 3.0 bus, were kept unchanged. This, in turn, means that new chipsets are not required to support Socket AM3; such processors are perfectly compatible with the same logic sets as Socket AM2+ models. That is why the main developers of chipsets for the AMD platform do not offer any special solutions aimed at supporting new products.

Almost complete mechanical and logical compatibility between types of processor sockets in some cases even allows you to move away from the original one-to-one correspondence scheme: Socket AM2+ - DDR2 SDRAM, Socket AM3 - DDR3 SDRAM. Some motherboard manufacturers, for example Jetway, are preparing universal Socket AM2+ motherboards with slots for DDR2 and DDR3, in which either one or the other memory can be installed when using a Socket AM3 processor.

Socket AM3 processors officially support DDR2 memory with frequencies up to 1067 MHz and DDR3 with frequencies up to 1333 MHz. At the same time, reliable operation of DDR3-1333 in Socket AM3 systems is guaranteed only if no more than one module is used per channel. However, in practice it turns out that new processors can also work with DDR3-1600 SDRAM: the corresponding multiplier for the memory frequency is supported by the built-in controller. In practice, it looks like this: when installing a Socket AM3 processor in a Socket AM2+ board, it becomes possible to choose between the standard DDR2-667/800/1067 memory frequencies for any Phenom, and when using it in Socket AM3 boards, a different set of multipliers opens up, allowing you to clock the memory in DDR3-1067/1333/1600 modes.

All that remains to be said is that to achieve full compatibility of Socket AM2+ motherboards available on the market with the new Socket AM3 processors, just a simple BIOS update is enough. Moreover, support in the BIOS of the motherboard for Phenom II processors, even in the Socket AM2+ version, automatically entails the fact that Socket AM3 processors will also work in such a motherboard without any problems. And this, in turn, means that no particular difficulties are expected when adapting the existing fleet of motherboards to new processors.

Phenom II X4 810 processor

After a detailed story about what Socket AM3 itself brings, it seems that there is nothing left to surprise us with the processor in this design. However, this is not quite true. Although overall the new Phenom IIs are not much different from the Phenom IIs introduced by AMD a month ago, the Phenom II X4 810 sent to us for testing showed some unexpected characteristics.

First of all, it should be noted that the Phenom II X4 810 received a processor number from the eighth dozen for a reason. With these reduced numbers, AMD designates quad-core processors with reduced characteristics. In our case, part of the L3 cache memory went under the knife; its size in the Phenom II X4 810 is 4 MB versus 6 MB in the “full-fledged” Phenom II.

In general, the appearance of Phenom II processors with reduced L3 cache memory, as well as with disabled cores, is a completely natural event. The monolithic chip of Deneb processors, although produced using a 45-nm process, has a fairly large area: 258 sq. mm. For comparison, this is only slightly less than the die area of ​​the Intel Core i7, which indicates approximately the same cost of production of these processors. A comparison of the retail costs of Core i7 and Phenom II is clearly not in favor of the latter: obviously, the release of Phenom II is a much less profitable enterprise than the production of Core i7. And given the fact that AMD does not yet have crystals comparable in performance to the best Intel products, it becomes clear that the company is forced to squeeze maximum profit from the available resources. Selling processors based on partially defective crystals, which for some reason could not make it into the Phenom II 900 series, is one such method.

Actually, the appearance of the Phenom II X4 810 is a typical illustration of this tactic. This processor is based on exactly the same Deneb semiconductor chip as in the Phenom II 900 series processors, but a third of the L3 cache is disabled. Thanks to this trick, AMD sells crystals in which a defect occurred during production in the part where the L3 cache is located. If the defect occurs in the area of ​​​​the crystal in which the computing cores are located, then such crystals are used in the production of three-core Phenom II 700 series processors, which are also presented to the public today.

The characteristics of the L3 cache memory of the Phenom II X4 810 processor look very strange.

According to the diagnostic utility, the L3 cache of this processor has 64 associative areas, while the L3 cache of the full-fledged Phenom II X4 900 with a 6-MB L3 cache had only 48 associative areas. The most logical explanation for this phenomenon seems to be an error in the CPU-Z readings, and the L3 cache of the Phenom II X4 810 has an associative degree of 32. Otherwise, the cache in the 800 series should have higher latency than in older processor models, which is not the case in practice observed.

However, the L3 cache of Phenom II processors in Socket AM3 version is still faster than that of their Socket AM2+ counterparts. However, the reasons for this do not lie in the depths of the microarchitecture - they lie on the surface. The fact is that for its Socket AM3 models, AMD has set a higher frequency for the integrated north bridge, which is also used to clock the third-level cache. The L3 cache in the Phenom II X4 810, as in other processors for the new platform, operates at a frequency of 2.0 GHz, while the frequency of the L3 cache of its predecessors was 200 MHz lower.

As follows from the above screenshot, the above is also true when installing a Socket AM3 processor in a Socket AM2+ motherboard.

But despite all the differences between the Phenom II in Socket AM3 version we are considering from its Socket AM2+ brothers, which we had the opportunity to meet a month ago, the blood relationship between them is quite difficult to hide. For example, the Phenom II X4 810 uses the same C2 core stepping that we previously noticed in the Phenom II X4 940 and 920 processors. This means that the semiconductor crystals underlying the Socket AM2+ and Socket AM3 variants of Phenom II do not differ at all, and the types of memory supported by a particular processor modification are determined only at the stage of packaging it in the case.

Impact of L3 cache size on performance

The first question that arises when getting acquainted with the characteristics of the Phenom II X4 810 processor concerns how much the reduction in the size of the L3 cache harms performance. To clearly answer this question, we decided to compare the performance of the Phenom II X4 810 and Phenom II X4 910 processors. Both of these models are based on the 45 nm Deneb core, have the same clock frequency of 2.6 GHz and differ only in the amount of cache memory, which in both cases it operates at the same frequency of 2.0 GHz.

Testing shows that cutting the L3 cache from 6 to 4 MB does not lead to any significant drop in the performance of Phenom II X4 processors. The loss of the Phenom II X4 810 to its “full-fledged” brother was not only an average of only 2%, but in the most unfavorable situations did not exceed the 5% limit.

Thus, it is quite reasonable that the Phenom II X4 810 costs only $20 less than the Phenom II X4 920. Obviously, there is no glaring difference in the practical performance of these processors, and the main drawback of the younger model is not the reduced L3 cache, but but at a lower clock frequency.

By the way, we should not forget that the third level cache of the Phenom II X4 810 processor operates at a higher frequency than the L3 cache of the older Phenom II X4 940 and 920 models. And this can be considered as additional compensation for its smaller volume , because, as we found out earlier, a 200 MHz increase in the frequency of the north bridge built into the processor entails approximately a one and a half percent increase in performance.

Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard

Frankly speaking, we have the impression that today's announcement of the Socket AM3 platform was not prepared well enough. The obvious problems that we also had to face are visible in the unavailability of the new infrastructure: choosing a platform for testing the new Socket AM3 processors turned out to be quite difficult. Motherboard manufacturers clearly did not expect that AMD would introduce Socket AM3 a month after the release of the first Socket AM2+ Phenom II, and therefore did not have time to bring the development and production of the corresponding products to the final stage. As a result, even AMD representatives recommended that we test the Phenom II X4 810 on a Socket AM2+ motherboard with DDR2 memory.

Nevertheless, we still managed to get a motherboard for Socket AM3 testing. The situation was saved by Gigabyte, which literally at the last moment provided its latest Socket AM3 board GA-MA790FXT-UD5P. This board will be a new flagship product among Gigabyte's offerings for AMD processor owners, and therefore deserves separate consideration.

Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P continues the company's series of products aimed at supporting AMD processors, so this board has many common features with its predecessors equipped with a Socket AM2+ processor socket. However, this is not at all surprising, given that the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P is based on the usual logic set, consisting of an AMD 790FX north bridge and an SB750 south bridge. In fact, the main features of the board are concentrated in the vicinity of Socket AM3, since there are four slots for DDR3 SDRAM - memory that was not previously supported by systems with AMD processors.

Since the motherboard in question is designed for creating high-performance systems, it has two PCI Express x16 2.0 slots that can work with a pair of graphics cards combined using CrossFireX technology in full-speed mode.

The positioning of the board also determined its belonging to the Ultra Durable 3 class, to which Gigabyte classifies all its most interesting products. First of all, this means that high-quality electronic components are used throughout the manufacture of the board: capacitors with solid electrolyte of Japanese origin, field-effect transistors with reduced channel resistance in the open state, and inductors made on armored ferrite cores. Secondly, the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard uses a PCB with thicker than usual copper ground and power layers. This improvement allows Gigabyte to talk about improving the quality of signals and reducing interference, as well as improving the thermal operating conditions of the board - the conductors at the same time play the role of a heat sink.

The processor power converter on the board is made according to a four-channel design, and its power is such that Gigabyte guarantees stable operation of the board with processors consuming up to 140 W. The transistors included in the power converter are covered by a massive heatsink (the largest on the board), connected by heat pipes to heatsinks installed on the north and south bridges of the chipset. It should be emphasized that these radiators have a small height and are moved away from the processor socket at a distance sufficient for comfortable installation of massive coolers. However, obstacles when installing a processor cooling system may still arise from the DIMM slots, which are located so close to the processor socket that the cooler may make it impossible to install DDR3 memory modules in the slots closest to the processor.

For ease of use, Gigabyte engineers placed “Power”, “Reset” and “Clear CMOS” buttons on the board. Unfortunately, the convenience this brings is offset by their very unfortunate location: the first two buttons are locked between the connectors, and the “Clear CMOS” button can be blocked by a long video card. But Gigabyte engineers did not forget a device to protect the reset button from accidental pressing: it is covered with a transparent plastic cap.

What attracts attention is the presence on the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P of ten Serial ATA-300 ports deployed parallel to the board. At the same time, six ports are implemented in a standard way through the SB750 south bridge, and the remaining four are handled by additional JMicron controllers. The ports connected to the south bridge support RAID levels 0, 1, 0+1 and 5, and additional ports can only support RAID 0 or 1.

The rear panel of the board has eight USB 2.0 ports, two gigabit network ports, two Firewire ports, PS/2 ports for a mouse and keyboard, as well as analog and SPDIF audio inputs and outputs. Note that the eight-channel Realtek ALC889A codec, which has a rated signal-to-noise ratio of 106 dB, is responsible for implementing sound on the board in question. In addition to the ports located on the rear panel, the GA-MA790FXT-UD5P is equipped with several needle connectors that allow you to connect four more USB 2.0 and one IEEE1394.

The BIOS Setup of the motherboard in question is made with a clear focus on enthusiasts, therefore, in addition to standard settings, it contains an entire “MB Intelligent Tweaker” section intended for overclocking. In addition to the standard options for changing multipliers and base frequencies, it offers flexible means for controlling voltages.

The limit for increasing the voltage on DDR3 memory is 2.35 V, and the processor voltage can be increased to a value exceeding the standard value by 0.6 V. Additionally, you can control the voltage of the north bridge built into the processor and the power supply of the chipset chips.

Also, the board offers detailed settings for memory parameters.

Overall, the Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard made a fairly favorable impression on us. Of course, the BIOS version number F4D with which we tested this board cannot yet be called problem-free and absolutely stable, but, nevertheless, we were able to not only perform a full set of tests in normal mode, but also conduct experiments on overclocking the processor.

How we tested

We divided today's testing into two stages. First of all, we will find out how the speed of Phenom II X4 processors is affected by their transition to a new platform that supports DDR3 SDRAM. To do this, we will compare the performance of the new Phenom II X4 810 when running in a Socket AM2+ motherboard with DDR2-800 and DDR2-1067 memory with its performance when installed in a Socket AM3 board in which we will use DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600 SDRAM .

The second stage of our tests will be devoted to determining the performance of the new quad-core AMD processors in comparison with competing offerings. Here, obviously, the main interest will be drawn to the comparison of the performance of the Phenom II X4 810 and the Core 2 Quad Q8200, since these processors have approximately the same retail price.

As a result, the following set of components was involved in the tests:

Processors:

AMD Phenom II X4 920 (Deneb, 2.8 GHz, 6 MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X4 910 (Deneb, 2.6 GHz, 6 MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X4 810 (Deneb, 2.6 GHz, 4 MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X4 805 (Deneb, 2.5 GHz, 4 MB L3);
AMD Phenom X4 9950 (Agena, 2.6 GHz, 2 MB L3);
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 (Yorkfield, 2.5 GHz, 333 MHz FSB, 2 x 2 MB L2);
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 (Yorkfield, 2.33 GHz, 333 MHz FSB, 2 x 2 MB L2).

Motherboards:

ASUS P5Q Pro (LGA775, Intel P45 Express, DDR2 SDRAM);
Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H (Socket AM2+, AMD 790GX + SB750, DDR2 SDRAM);
Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P (Socket AM3, AMD 790FX + SB750, DDR3 SDRAM).

RAM:

GEIL GX24GB8500C5UDC (2 x 2 GB, DDR2-1067 SDRAM, 5-5-5-15);
Mushkin 996601 4GB XP3-12800 (2 x 2GB, DDR3-1600 SDRAM, 7-7-7-20).

Graphics card: ATI RADEON HD 4870.
HDD: Western Digital WD1500AHFD.
Operating system: Microsoft Windows Vista x64 SP1.
Drivers:

Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility 9.1.0.1007;
ATI Catalyst 9.1 Display Driver.

Performance: DDR3 vs DDR2

In this part of our article, we will compare the performance of the Phenom II X4 810 when installed in motherboards with different types of processor socket: Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H and Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P. In both cases, we used a couple of different widely used memory configurations.

Thus, the Socket AM2+ system used DDR2-800 with timings of 5-5-5-15 and 1T Command Rate and DDR2-1067 with timings of 5-5-5-15 and 2T Command Rate. Note that using 2T Command Rate in the second case is a necessary measure, since the Phenom II memory controller does not allow reducing this delay when using two-GB DDR2-1067 SDRAM modules.

The Socket AM3 system used configurations including DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600, both with latencies of 7-7-7-20. In both cases, the Command Rate parameter was set to 1T - fortunately, with high-speed DDR3 memory such a choice is acceptable.

Synthetic tests

First of all, it was decided to evaluate the practical parameters of memory subsystems of various platforms using synthetic tests.

As you would expect, the synthetic tests unanimously demonstrate the superior throughput and latency of the Socket AM3 platform. In other words, one can only expect a performance increase from a new platform that allows the use of DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600.

It is necessary to add to the above that, as an additional test has shown, the performance of the memory controller of a Socket AM3 processor installed in a Socket AM2+ system with DDR2 memory turns out to be identical to the performance of the memory controller of “native” Socket AM2+ processors (provided it operates at the same clock frequency of the built-in northern bridge). In other words, the versatility of the memory controller of Socket AM3 processors does not lead to a decrease in its performance when working with DDR2 SDRAM.

Overall Performance

Results obtained in SYSMark 2007, which shows weighted average performance in real-world applications, confirm the benefits of the new platform. However, they do not give reasons for excessive optimism. As you can see, the transition to using DDR3 SDRAM increases the speed of a system based on the Phenom II X4 810 processor quite symbolically. Thus, the superiority of a Socket AM3 system equipped with DDR3-1600 SDRAM over a system with a Socket AM2+ processor and DDR2-1067 memory is only 3-4%.

Gaming Performance

Although games usually show good sensitivity to changes in the characteristics of the memory subsystem, switching to DDR3 does not bring significant benefits. However, it must be emphasized that this does not at all mean that a completely careless approach when choosing memory is acceptable. For example, choosing DDR3-1600 SDRAM instead of DDR2-800 can increase platform performance by up to 10%. Therefore, the emergence of the Socket AM3 platform and processors with a universal memory controller cannot be called a useless step. DDR3 memory has now become sufficiently developed that there is no doubt about its advantages over DDR2. This means that AMD clearly did not wait in vain to launch its new platform.

Although encoding video content is primarily a computational task, fast DDR3 memory provides a slight speedup in this case as well.

Tellingly, the advantage of the Socket AM3 platform over Socket AM2+ is evident even in the final rendering, which is almost completely indifferent to the choice of memory.

Other Applications

When editing images in a popular graphics editor, the type of memory has a clearly visible effect. Even when using the most common DDR3-1333 memory, we were able to achieve higher speeds than the Socket AM2+ system with DDR2-1067 SDRAM demonstrated.

With the transition to a new platform, the speed of solving computational problems in Excel and Mathematica increased slightly. The superiority of the Socket AM3 system with DDR3-1600 memory over the configuration using Socket AM2+ and DDR2-1067 SDRAM was almost 3%.

The speed of the archiver also increases on approximately the same scale.

To summarize, we can say that the Socket AM3 platform allows Phenom II X4 processors to speed up typical tasks by an average of 2-3%. Today, given the price difference between DDR2 and DDR3 modules, this increase seems ridiculous. However, in light of the trend towards a further decline in the cost of DDR3 SDRAM, the Socket AM3 platform has quite bright prospects.

AMD Phenom II X4 810 performance

Despite the fact that the new AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor has a Socket AM3 design, we decided to test its performance, as well as the performance of other today's new products, in a Socket AM2+ system equipped with DDR2 memory. This is due to the fact that in the current realities, these processors, which belong to the middle price range, will most likely be used in such systems: this is the most logical option from the point of view of economic feasibility. In addition, DDR2 memory was used in all other systems we tested, so choosing the Socket AM2+ platform for testing the Phenom II X4 810 seems quite correct.

Overall Performance

Competent pricing policy is something that AMD has become particularly adept at recently. Therefore, it would be strange to see if any of the new processors looked inadequate among competitors in the same price category. So the slight superiority of the Phenom II X4 810 over the Core 2 Quad Q8200 is not at all surprising, but the more expensive Intel processor, Core 2 Quad Q8300, is no longer a match for today's main new product.

Gaming Performance

Although Phenom II processors have begun to demonstrate much better performance in games than their predecessors produced using 65-nm technology, it is not yet possible to talk about a confident victory of the Phenom II X4 810 over the Core 2 Quad of the same price category. For the Phenom II X4 810 to receive our clear recommendation as a gaming solution, it clearly lacks the clock speed. However, the situation for the AMD processor is by no means catastrophic, and in a number of gaming applications its performance is at a quite acceptable level.

Video encoding performance

But when encoding video, the Phenom II X4 810 shows itself exclusively on the positive side. For example, when using the x264 codec, it can even compete on equal terms with the more expensive Core 2 Quad Q8300. This is obviously explained by the high efficiency of the FPU/SSE of the processor unit with the Stars (K10) microarchitecture.

Rendering Performance

It is quite difficult to make a general verdict with this type of load. As can be clearly seen from the graphs, everything greatly depends on the application used for rendering. However, the Phenom II X4 810 does not completely fall flat on its face, demonstrating decent results even in 3ds max 2009, where Intel processors are traditionally strong.

Other Applications

Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Excel are two popular applications where the Phenom II processors do a very poor job. This also applies to the Phenom II X4 810, which loses to the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in the execution time of our test tasks by 9 and 17 percent, respectively.

In Wolfram Mathematica 7, the Phenom II X4 810's results can be called acceptable, although they are slightly lower than those of the youngest Core 2 Quad series processor.

But when archiving in WinRAR, the new AMD processor manages to demonstrate significantly higher relative performance than in previous cases.

Counting tasks where integer arithmetic is actively used are not the most favorable environment for processors with the Stars (K10) microarchitecture. The two diagrams above provide a clear illustration of this long-known thesis.

Overclocking

With the release of the Phenom II family, the topic of overclocking AMD processors has again become relevant. These processors, which are based on 45 nm cores, have, among other things, good overclocking potential: as our earlier tests, these models, when using air cooling, are capable of operating at frequencies reaching 3.7-3.8 GHz. However, our conclusions were made for 900-series processors using full-fledged Deneb cores. Now we have the Phenom II X4 810 processor in our hands, which has a stripped-down third-level cache and, in addition, Socket AM3 performance.

To study the overclocking potential of the new processor, we used the new Socket AM3 motherboard Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P. The use of this board will allow us, among other things, to draw conclusions about the suitability of Socket AM3 platforms in general for overclocking. The processor was cooled during tests using a Scythe Mugen cooler with a Noctua NF-P12 fan installed on it.

We were able to get the best result when we increased the processor supply voltage from the standard 1.3 to 1.525 V. In this state, the processor overclocked to 3.64 GHz, which is quite comparable to the overclocking results of other Phenom IIs that we obtained earlier.

Note that since the Phenom II X4 810 processor does not belong to the Black Edition class and does not have a free multiplier, it was overclocked by increasing the frequency of the base clock generator. In particular, to obtain a processor frequency of 3.64 GHz, we had to increase the clock generator frequency to 280 MHz, which the Socket AM3 motherboard we used coped with without any problems. In other words, overclocking processors in Socket AM3 systems is absolutely similar to overclocking in systems with a Socket AM2+ processor socket and can be performed in full accordance with our guide.

As for the Phenom II X4 810 itself, its 40% overclocking that we obtained can become an additional argument in favor of the AMD platform. Moreover, it is often possible to overclock Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 processors of comparable cost only to 3.4 GHz. And in this regard, a system built on the Phenom II X4 810 may be quite attractive for overclockers.

conclusions

To be honest, AMD chose a somewhat strange moment to launch its new Socket AM3 platform, designed for processors that support DDR3 memory. For some reason, this platform did not appear a month ago, along with the new line of Phenom II processors, but only now. As a result, due to the fact that older modifications of Phenom II are already offered in Socket AM2+ variations, models from the mid-price range are forced to accompany the announcement of Socket AM3. However, these processors seem to be very poor candidates for installation in Socket AM3 motherboards: the DDR3 memory required for such systems is approximately one and a half to two times more expensive than the widely used DDR2 SDRAM, which makes its purchase a dubious investment compared to the possibility of choosing a more expensive processor.

However, the main advantage of Socket AM3 processors is that they are equipped with a flexible memory controller that can work with both DDR3 and DDR2 memory. Therefore, no one is forcing you to use the mid-priced Socket AM3 processors introduced today in Socket AM3 systems. They also work perfectly in the existing, time-tested Socket AM2+ or even Socket AM2 infrastructure.

However, thanks to testing the new processor in a Socket AM3 motherboard, we were able to verify the viability of this platform. Using DDR3 SDRAM with Phenom II processors gives a very tangible effect, consisting of an approximately three percent increase in performance even compared to DDR2-1067 SDRAM.

Fortunately, the lack of high-performance processors for the Socket AM3 platform is a temporary situation. Over the coming months, AMD will obviously adjust its offerings, and the new platform will receive decent high-speed processors. This period of time is given to motherboard manufacturers who clearly need it so that they can finally bring their Socket AM3 products to fruition.

As for the Phenom II X4 810 processor reviewed in this article, it should be perceived as another embodiment of AMD's strategy of offering higher performance for less money. Testing has shown that in terms of performance it is comparable to the Core 2 Quad Q8200, but at the same time it costs a little less. As a result, AMD now has an acceptable alternative to all cheap quad-core Intel processors, up to the Core 2 Quad Q9400. In other words, AMD was able to take an important step - to offer a competitive line of processors that can be fully recommended for purchase.

To what has been said in this article, we can only add that we are not finishing our acquaintance with Phenom II yet, and in the near future we will have another material about new triple-core processors, which are based on the Heka core, produced using a 45-nm technological process.

Check availability and cost of AMD Phenom II processors

Other materials on this topic

Overclocking the Phenom II X4 920: the fall of the Core 2 Quad cult
Sometimes they come back: AMD introduces the Phenom II X4
AMD Releases "Phenom X2": AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition Review

After the breakthrough of the early 2000s, AMD safely returned to its usual state of always catching up and, despite quite interesting and, undoubtedly, advanced technical solutions, does not even try to compete with Intel in terms of sales volumes.

As of mid-2009, the company's share accounts for about 14.5% of the microprocessor market.
At the same time, the once proprietary “features” of AMD chips - for example, 64-bit instruction extensions or a RAM controller built into the processor - have long been used in the chips of their main competitor.

AMD products today occupy two very narrow niches: ultra-budget processors for building economy-class computers and high-performance models offered three to five times cheaper than comparable Intel chips.

This explains the fact that on store shelves you can find AMD processors of various families and generations - from the prehistoric Sempron and Athlon based on the well-deserved K8 architecture for the Socket 939 socket to the ultra-modern six-core Phenom II X6.

Be that as it may, AMD is now relying on the K10 architecture, so we will talk specifically about processors designed on its basis.
These include the Phenom and Phenom II, as well as their budget variant, the shyly named Athlon II.

Historically, the first K10-based chips were the quad-core Phenom X4 (codenamed Agena), released in November 2007.
A little later, in April 2008, the tri-core Phenom X3 appeared - the world's first central processors for desktop computers, in which three cores are located on one chip.

In December 2008, with the transition to the 45-nanometer process technology, the updated Phenom II family was introduced, and in February the chips received a new Socket AM3 connector.
Serial production of the quad-core Phenom II X4 began in January 2009, the triple-core Phenom II X3 in February 2009, the dual-core Phenom II X2 in June 2009, and the six-core Phenom II X2 just recently, in April 2010.

Athlon II - a modern replacement for Sempron - is a Phenom II, deprived of one of its most important advantages - a large third-level cache (L3), common to all cores.
Available in two-, three- and four-core versions.
The Athlon II X2 has been in production since June 2009, the X4 since September 2009, and the X3 since November 2009.

AMD K10 architecture

What are the fundamental differences between the K10 and K8 architecture?
First of all, in K10 processors all cores are made on a single chip and are equipped with a dedicated L2 cache.
The Phenom/Phenom 2 and server Opteron chips also provide a common L3 cache memory for all cores, the volume of which ranges from 2 to 6 MB.

The second major benefit of the K10 is the new HyperTransport 3.0 system bus with peak throughput of up to 41.6 GB/s in both directions in 32-bit mode or up to 10.4 GB/s in one direction in 16-bit mode and frequencies up to 2. 6 GHz.
Let us remind you that the maximum operating frequency of the previous version of HyperTransport 2.0 is 1.4 GHz, and the peak throughput is up to 22.4 or 5.6 GB/s.

A wide bus is especially important for multi-core processors, and HyperTransport 3.0 provides channel configurability, allowing each core to have its own independent lane.
In addition, the K10 processor is capable of dynamically changing the width and operating frequency of the bus in proportion to its own frequency.

It should be noted that currently in AMD chips the HyperTransport 3.0 bus operates at a much lower speed than the maximum allowable.
Depending on the model, three modes are used: 1.6 GHz and 6.4 GB/s, 1.8 GHz and 7.2 GB/s and 2 GHz and 8.0 GB/s.
The manufactured chips do not yet use two more standard modes - 2.4 GHz and 9.6 GB/s and 2.6 GHz and 10.4 GB/s.

K10 processors integrate two independent RAM controllers, which speeds up access to modules in real-world operating conditions.
The controllers are capable of working with DDR2-1066 memory (models for socket AM2+ and AM3) or DDR3 (chips for socket AM3).

Since the controller integrated into the Phenom II and Athlon II for Socket AM3 supports both types of RAM, and the AM3 socket is backward compatible with AM2+, the new CPUs can be installed on older AM2+ boards and work with DDR2 memory.

This means that when you purchase a Phenom II for an upgrade, you will not have to immediately change the motherboard or purchase a different type of RAM - as is the case, for example, with Intel i3/i5/i7 chips.

Microprocessors with K10 architecture implement a whole set of modernized energy-saving technologies - AMD Cool’n’Quiet, CoolCore, Independent Dynamic Core and Dual Dynamic Power Management.

This sophisticated system automatically reduces the power consumption of the entire chip during idle mode, provides independent power management for the memory controller and cores, and is capable of shutting down unused processor elements.

Finally, the cores themselves have also been significantly improved.
The design of sampling, branch and branch prediction, and dispatching units was redesigned, which made it possible to optimize core load and, ultimately, improve performance.

The width of SSE blocks was increased from 64 to 128 bits, it became possible to execute 64-bit instructions as one, and support for two additional SSE4a instructions was added (not to be confused with the SSE4.1 and 4.2 instruction sets in Intel Core processors).

Here it is necessary to mention a design defect identified in server Opterons (codenamed Barcelona) and in Phenom X4 and X3 of the first releases - the so-called “TLB error”, which at one time led to a complete cessation of supply of all Opterons of revision B2.
In very rare cases, under high load, due to a design flaw in the L3 cache TLD block, the system could behave unstable and unpredictable.

The defect was considered critical for server systems, which is why the shipment of all released Opterons was suspended.
A special patch was released for desktop Phenoms that disables the defective block using the BIOS, but at the same time the processor performance dropped noticeably.
With the transition to revision B3, the problem was completely eliminated, and such chips have not been found on sale for a long time.