AMD Socket-AM2: Same Performance, Faster Memory, Lower Power
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 23, 2006 12:14 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Through regular advances in process technology, AMD has also been able to reduce the power consumption of the entire X2 line on Socket-AM2. Now all AM2 X2 parts feature an 89W TDP, whereas previously the higher model number X2s were all 110W parts. AMD confirmed that the lower power consumption would also affect newer fabbed Socket-939 X2s, however AMD will not be changing the TDP ratings on those chips.
On top of reducing power consumption for the Athlon 64 X2 line, Socket-AM2 will also be home to AMD's new Energy Efficient processors. Through the same sort of TDP targeting that is used to manufacture energy efficient Opteron processors, you will now be able to pay a premium and purchase cooler running Athlon 64, X2 and Sempron AM2 processors. The clock speeds and model numbers remain the same, but these new processors will either carry an Energy Efficient logo indicating a 65W TDP or an Energy Efficient Small Form Factor logo that indicates a 35W TDP.
The entire list of Energy Efficient and EE SFF CPUs is listed below:
| CPU | TDP | Price | Premium |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Energy Efficient | 65W | $671 | +$26 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Energy Efficient | 65W | $601 | +$43 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Energy Efficient | 65W | $514 | +$44 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Energy Efficient | 65W | $417 | +$52 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Energy Efficient | 65W | $353 | +$25 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Energy Efficient | 65W | $323 | +$20 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Energy Efficient Small Form Factor | 35W | $364 | +$61 |
| AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Energy Efficient Small Form Factor | 35W | $231 | +$42 |
| AMD Sempron 3400+ Energy Efficient Small Form Factor | 35W | $145 | +$48 |
| AMD Sempron 3200+ Energy Efficient Small Form Factor | 35W | $119 | +$32 |
| AMD Sempron 3000+ Energy Efficient Small Form Factor | 35W | $101 | +$24 |
For anywhere from $20 - $60 over their 89W and 62W counterparts, you can now have 65W or 35W Energy Efficient AM2 CPUs. The price premium is tacked onto the processors because these lower wattage parts don't yield at the same rate as the higher wattage CPUs, and thus require a higher price to make up for the decrease in yield. But honestly, the premium on a lot of the CPUs is small enough that we can't help but recommend them (assuming the real world reduction in power is in line with AMD's reduction in TDP rating).
The Energy Efficient Small Form Factor Athlon 64 X2 3800+ at a mere 35W (less than half the TDP of the standard X2 3800+) is particularly interesting to us, but unfortunately we'll have to wait before being able to provide you all with power measurements. While all regular AM2 CPUs are available beginning today, the new Energy Efficient models won't be available in the channel until sometime in June. AMD did not have enough samples on hand to even provide us with one in time for publication, citing extreme OEM demand as the reason for supply being so tight. Hopefully when these CPUs do hit the channel we won't see any sort of price gouging as they are extremely attractive.
There are of course a long list of of new motherboards and chipsets with support for Socket-AM2, but we'll save the deep dive on both of those topics for some of our other articles in the works. Later today you'll be able to read all about NVIDIA's new nForce 500 platform, later in the week you'll see what ATI has to offer for AM2 and then next week we'll have our first roundup of Socket-AM2 motherboards.
The Test
| CPU: | AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 (Socket-AM2) AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 (Socket-939) AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Socket-AM2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Socket-AM2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Socket-AM2) Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 Intel Pentium D 960 Intel Pentium D 950 |
| Motherboard: | ASUS A8N32-SLI (Socket-939) ASUS M2N32-SLI (Socket-AM2) Intel D975XBX |
| Chipset: | NVIDIA nForce4 SLI x16 NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI |
| Chipset Drivers: | nForce 9.34 Beta |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA |
| Memory: | Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2) OCZ DDR-400 2-2-2 (1GB x 2) |
| Video Card: | NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 91.27 Beta |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1280 x 1024 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
| OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
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