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
darkdemyze - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
z-ram isn't due for AMD procs for quite some time, I doubt this is their plan for June..mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Basically this is what I said above for my guess of the "trick" AMD will use. Anand said it will only affect some high-end users, read FX series so it can't be price cuts as some have suggested (that would effect everyone). Adding L3 cache is the only performance improvement I can think of that doesn't require changing the microarchitecture of the cores (well at least not a big change).However, TDP is still an issue here as someone above suggested. I don't know how much more power it takes to run L3 cache. Last time AMD did it was on K6 and power wasn't really measured back then.
By the way, please ignore Questar's comment below about z-ram being pig slow. I really don't think he knows what he is talking about. /shields eyes from incoming Questar flame
johnsonx - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link
K6-III did not have L3 cache. It had L2 cache, making the cache that all socket-7 boards had then an L3 cache.So, let's stop saying things like 'AMD hasn't done L3 cache since K6-III', etc.
mino - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link
Well, IMHO the point is AMD has used exclusive 3-level cache structure in the past so they have som experience with thi arrangement.Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
No flame here, look it up for yourself.Z-RAM has high capacitive loading, which results in slow speed.
At 4MB it'll run half the speed of SRAM.
Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Large amounts of Z-RAM are pig slow.Ecmaster76 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
Seriously, the one area an Athlon X2 would be bandwidth starved and does it get tested in the preview? NOIn the review? NO
How long ago did we know that the K8 was not bandwidth limited in single application usage? YEARS
So yeah, DDR2 din't increase the 3dMark, big surprise
mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
I think 3dMark06 is multithreaded now so all available cores and bandwidth should be used within the limits of the program. I could be wrong about this however.Ecmaster76 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
3Dmark06 is almost completely GPU limited. The 3Dmark CPU score did increase a bit, but I really was referring to graphics benchmarks in general.cscpianoman - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link
I was just noticing the performance differences between the FX and the EE. In some cases the FX tromps the EE by "gasp" 30%! In other cases the EE makes it's mark. This is part of the reason I am skeptic on Conroe. Yeah it's good. But I always take what Intel, or AMD for that matter, with a grain of salt. Just today we saw the 30% advantage translate down to about 15%. This seems just like any other generation change where 15% is to be expected. The current hype for the Conroe is a product of Intel's excellent marketing dept.