AMD Socket-AM2: Same Performance, Faster Memory, Lower Power
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 23, 2006 12:14 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
And there you have it, quite possibly the most unimpressive launch from AMD (from a performance perspective), but given what we had already seen prior to today there shouldn't be any surprises. The introduction of the Athlon 64 FX-62 means that there is an even faster alternative for those looking to spend as much as possible on a desktop or workstation CPU, but the new 5000+ isn't really all that appealing, especially if you're a gamer.
Socket-AM2 is unfortunately not about performance, and much about bringing a unified memory platform not only to AMD but to the industry as a whole. With all desktop AMD CPUs sharing a single socket end users and OEMs alike will have a much easier job when building AMD systems. On a much more macro scale, with both AMD and Intel using DDR2 memory prices should be driven down even further and switching between platforms will no longer require throwing away your entire memory investment.
The big story with Socket-AM2 is really the introduction of the new Energy Efficient and Energy Efficient Small Form Factor CPUs, but unfortunately those are not yet available. Instead, today's launch ends up being much more about the chipsets being used on AM2 motherboards rather than the CPUs. Later today we will be looking at NVIDIA's nForce 500 series and how the evolution of the most popular AMD chipset has taken to the Socket-AM2 platform.
It is ironic and equally unfortunate for AMD that on the eve of Intel finally getting its act together, that the Socket-AM2 launch is so devoid of any sort of performance improvements. It's clear that AMD's architecture just simply isn't starved of memory bandwidth at this point, and it will take either higher clock speeds or architectural improvements to make the move to DDR2 necessary. We are happy with the fact that AMD at least kept memory latency down while moving to DDR2, but at this point there's simply no use for the bandwidth.
In the coming months we will see the official launch of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors, based on the Conroe core. Only time will tell how availability will affect pricing of those CPUs, but Intel is quite eager to release them. AMD is also awaiting the launch of Core 2 Duo, though for different reasons; in fact one of its stipulations for sending out Socket-AM2 review kits was that the CPUs not be compared to Conroe. We understood and agreed with AMD's stance on the issue, simply because Core 2 Duo (Conroe) isn't shipping yet while AM2 is, but we do get a sense of concern whenever Conroe is brought up around AMD.
AMD does have one last trick up its sleeve before the end of the year, and you will hear about it in June. It's not K8L and it's not going to affect the majority of people, but it is an interesting stop gap solution for the high end in 2006...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
83 Comments
View All Comments
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