Socket-AM2 Performance Preview
Without major architectural changes to the new AM2 CPUs, we wanted a quick and easy way to showcase the performance differences between AM2 and Socket-939. What we've got is a massive table below with all of our usual CPU benchmarks and their results for the same CPU in both Socket-939 and AM2 varieties, and the performance benefit offered by AM2:
Benchmark | Socket-939 (DDR-400) | Socket-AM2 (DDR2-800) | % Advantage (Socket-AM2) |
PC WorldBench 5 | 115 | 115 | 0% |
Business Winstone 2004 | 23.3 | 23.2 | -0.4% |
Multimedia Winstone 2004 | 38.4 | 38.9 | 1.3% |
SYSMark 2004 | 220 | 224 | 1.8% |
ICC SYSMark 2004 | 282 | 286 | 1.4% |
OP SYSMark 2004 | 171 | 175 | 2.3% |
3dsmax 7 | 2.38 | 2.38 | 0% |
Adobe Premier Pro 1.5 (Export w/ Adobe Media Encoder) | 130 s | 128 s | 1.5% |
Adobe Photoshop CS2 | 210.6 s | 210.3 s | 0.1% |
DivX 6.1 | 11.6 fps | 12.0 fps | 3.4% |
WME9 | 35.2 fps | 35.6 fps | 1.1% |
Quicktime 7.0.4 (H.264) | 3.63 min | 3.63 min | 0% |
iTunes 6.0.1.4 (MP3) | 43 s | 43 s | 0% |
Quake 4 - 10x7 (SMP) | 111.3 fps | 117.4 fps | 5.5% |
Call of Duty 2 - 10x7 | 59.3 fps | 60.1 fps | 1.3% |
F.E.A.R. - 10x7 | 92 fps | 94 fps | 2.1% |
Multitasking Test (LAME + WME + Anti Virus + Zip) | 216.3 s | 213.4 s | 1.4% |
ScienceMark 2.0 (Bandwidth) | 5007 MB/s | 6805 MB/s | 36% |
ScienceMark 2.0 (Latency 512-byte stride) | 53.83 ns | 49.77 ns | 7.5% |
We'll start at the bottom of the table and go up from there. Rev F processors feature a 128-bit DDR2-800 memory controller, which works out to offer a peak theoretical bandwidth to/from memory of 12.8GB/s. As you can expect, that's twice the bandwidth of Rev E CPUs' 128-bit DDR-400 controller at 6.4GB/s. Thus to see a 36% increase in memory bandwidth according to ScienceMark is to be expected, albeit a bit on the low side. The old DDR-400 memory controller is able to deliver 5GB/s out of a maximum of 6.4GB/s, but now we're only seeing 6.8GB/s out of a maximum of 12.8GB/s with AM2. This however is a huge step for AMD, as it is the first spin of the Rev F silicon that we've been able to see such a significant advantage in theoretical memory bandwidth over previous DDR-400 cores.
What's even more important than the increase in memory bandwidth is that access latency has been reduced by 7.5% over the DDR-400 memory controller in the Rev E cores. Lower latency and more bandwidth means that, at bare minimum, performance won't go down. At least, not perceptibly: .4% slower in one test that has a 1-2% variability is nothing to worry about.
It also doesn't guaranee that performance will go up, as you can see from the results above. If we only count the overall SYSMark score and leave out the synthetic tests, the real world performance advantage averages out to a little under 1.3%. There are some special cases such as Quake 4 and DivX were performance goes up fairly reasonably, which can be expected since both of those tasks are fairly bandwidth intensive and make good use of both cores. However similar benchmarks, such as F.E.A.R. and Windows Media Encoder 9 show lower improvements, so it is very dependent on the specific application and workload.
It's important to note that until recently, AM2 samples were not able to produce scores even on par with Socket-939, so the fact that we're seeing a performance increase at all is a major step from where we were just a couple of months ago. The real question is, is this all we get?
107 Comments
View All Comments
Furen - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
Hardly a "common rumor", it's an Inquirer rumor that has been given a lot of circulation but I have yet to see another publication confirm it.jones377 - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
The bandwidth numbers are better now but STILL dissapointing. Intel will probably get about the same or better number from a 1333MHz FSB using DDR2 667. In the past, AMD always got a little better bandwidth out of the same speed modules. Are AMD sandbagging or do they have problems with their DDR2 controller?tk109 - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
So they basicly have no answer to Conroe...rqle - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
yes we do, we still have that "previous generation vs. new generation" quote we can always used. LOL. just like AMD64 vs northwood/presscott.But really though, i assume the amd crowd should be a little smarter and get over that quote.
phaxmohdem - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
I get a bit confused as to what generation is what, and where you draw the line at a generation change for instance:AMD -> Intel
486 -> 486 <--Gen 4
K5/K6 -> Pentium <--Gen 5/6 vs. Gen 5
K6-2/3 -> Pentium II <-- Gen 6
K7 Athlon -> Pentium III <--Gen 7 vs. Gen 6?
K7 Athlon XP -> Pentium 4 Willamette/Northwood <--Gen 7
K8 A64 -> Pentium 4 Prescott <-- Gen 8 vs. Gen 8??
K8 A64 -> Conroe/Core <-- Gen 8 vs. Gen 9?
Perhaps someone can shed some light on this.
Shintai - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
How did Prescott become Gen 8? Its a northwood with 64bitConroe is Gen 8. So your table should say K8 (Gen8) vs Conroe (Gen8)
Furen - Monday, April 10, 2006 - link
LOL, how do you define a "generation"? What kind of changes indicate that you're talking about a new generation? The K8 is remarkably similar to a K7, so is it a newer generation or just an improvement on the same one? Does it even matter?The K8 has been on the market for close to three years now, so it's completely understandable that a brand new architecture will give it a run for its money. I'll say this, though, both the K8 and the Prescott came out at around the same time, so considering both the same generation is reasonable.