 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Processor Preview May 07, 2005 Chris Crazipper Angelini |
|
 |
|
| |
Summary: After launching their server and workstation-oriented dual-core Opteron processors last month, today AMD is allowing the press to release benchmarks on their dual-core desktop "X2" Athlon 64 processors, which will be available starting in June. See how the new processor stacks up to the latest single and dual-core processors from both AMD and Intel, as well as overclocking results with our Athlon 64 X2 4800+ chip inside!
 Introduction | Page:: ( 1 / 12 ) |
Fortunately, we didn’t have to wait long. AMD maintains that it isn’t officially launching the Athlon 64 X2 family until sometime in June; however, it’s more than happy to provide a sneak peak at the hardware to tide us over for the next month. Could it be that AMD’s worried about Intel’s aggressive dual-core price structure? There’s little reason to be. Announced more than a month ago, there’s still no evidence of a boxed dual-core product from the Pentium D or Extreme Edition families. In fact, the only readily available dual-core hardware currently selling is AMD’s Opteron 800-series.
[image]
| <% print_image("01"); %> |
We can nevertheless understand AMD’s urgency. Whereas the server and workstation markets stand to benefit immediately from threaded software, Intel is effectively getting the word out that dual-core will improve multi-tasking performance on the desktop as well, even when you’re talking about single-threaded programs. AMD wants in on the action and is ready to position its dual-core Athlon 64 X2 in what it calls the prosumer (proactive/professional/prosperous consumer?) and digital media segments populated by sophisticated power users and content creation enthusiasts.
Availability is the sticking point. Don’t expect an encore to the wonderfully executed Opteron launch last month. This time around AMD is pre-announcing its product, launching sometime in June, delivering availability to system builders in the third quarter, and enabling retail availability sometime later. The road to dual-core will be an arduous one littered with temptation (there’s an Athlon 64 FX update coming later this year), competition (those dual-core Pentium D’s sure are priced to move), and financial hardship ($1,001 for an Athlon 64 X2 4800+? Ouch!). Let’s see if the nail-baiting is justified.
| X2: Dual-Core Part Deux | Page:: ( 2 / 12 ) |
Examining the Athlon 64 X2
The same holds true today as the Opteron and Athlon X2 drive AMD’s dual-core offerings. Pretty much everything learned previously about the Opteron applies here and now. There are a couple of notable exceptions, but the likenesses are far more pervasive. For more information about the dual-core Opteron and how AMD designed it, check out our preview here.
For example, the X2 houses 233.3 million transistors on a 199 square millimeter die, just like the dual-core Opteron. They’re also both manufactured on a 90nm SOI lithography process per the revision E core that AMD recently introduced. Thus, all dual-core chips boast SSE3 instruction support, lower nominal operating voltage, and an improved memory controller. We can confirm that a motherboard populated with four, 1GB DDR400 memory modules will now run at the proper frequency, albeit at slightly higher timings.
[image]
| <% print_image("02"); %> |
As with the Opteron, both processing cores interface with a request queue and crossbar that’s responsible for delegating communication between cores, the memory controller, and the HyperTransport bus. Of course, a single-socket Athlon 64 X2 doesn’t have the throughput requirements you might otherwise see on an eight-way server, so there’s only one HyperTransport link running at 1 GHz. The benefit of AMD’s approach is clear--with each core communicating at full-speed, the overall gains realized by threading increase and the scaling characteristics of future processors are more likely to remain linear.
One of the ways AMD plans to differentiate various X2 models is through cache size, as it does currently. All Athlon 64 X2 processors include 64KB of L1 data cache and 64 L1 instruction cache per core, for a total of 256KB. Additionally, some will feature 512KB of L2 cache per core, while others wield 1MB per. By individually tweaking operating frequency and cache size, AMD is able to establish variability in performance and price.
Take the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, for example. Operating at 2.4 GHz and equipped with 1MB of L2 per core, the 4800+ defines AMD’s uppermost dual-core offering. A 4600+ will fall right below it, also running at 2.4 GHz with a reduced 512KB per core. The 4400+ ratchets L2 capacity back to 1MB, but drops clock speed to 2.2 GHz. Finally, the 4200+ will offer 2.2 GHz and independent 512KB caches.
| Upcoming AMD Athlon 64 X2 Lineup | |||
| CPU | Clock Speed | L2 Cache Size | Price |
| Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | 2.4GHz | 1MB | $1001 |
| Athlon 64 X2 4600+ | 2.4GHz | 512KB | $803 |
| Athlon 64 X2 4400+ | 2.2GHz | 1MB | $581 |
| Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | 2.2GHz | 512KB | $537 |
| |||
| More AMD Dual-Core | Page:: ( 3 / 12 ) |
Nomenclature Explored
[image]
| <% print_image("03"); %> |
In other environments where multi-tasking might be more heavily emphasized or where encoding tasks employ the two cores simultaneously, AMD’s naming scheme makes a lot more sense. It’s entirely plausible that an X2 4200+ would outmaneuver a single-core 4000+ in Windows Media Encoder 9, despite the loss in cache and frequency. Naturally, as time progresses and more software developers show favor toward threading, that gap will increase toward dual-core. For the time being, though, how much of an advantage a dual-core processor retains over a single-core chip remains a function of how it’s used.
Pricing
AMD voices its opinion on the matter with a pricing schedule. And as the model numbers would indicate, the dual-core X2 4200+ is indeed going to cost more than an Athlon 64 4000+. The former is expected to run $537 in 1,000 unit quantities, while the latter costs $482. The 2.2 GHz 4400+ should run about $581, while the 4600+ tips the scales at $803. If you’re looking for a 4800+, expect to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000.
As a point of reference, the top-end Opteron 175 runs a pricey $999, according to AMD’s expected 1,000 price stack. Given the choice between a 4800+ running at 2.4 GHz and an Opteron 175 at 2.2, the extra $2 for the Athlon is a no-brainer, even in a workstation environment. Of course you’ll pay more for the privilege of using two or more sockets, as an Opteron 275 is listed at roughly $1,300, but that’s another market entirely.
Platform Considerations
The other important distinction between Opteron and the Athlon 64 X2 lies in platform deployment. With Opteron, the message was any motherboard capable of supporting a 90nm processor would support dual-core. This time around, AMD says every single Socket 939 platform will accommodate an Athlon 64 X2, given a requisite BIOS update. The interface was developed as Socket 940 teethed, and is better able to support a 110W processor. Athlon 64 X2 fits into the same power budget as its predecessor and is fully capable of employing the same cooling solutions sold to those with single-core Athlon 64 chips.
Overclocking
Though the ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard used for our tests wielded a beta BIOS without many overclocking options (it doesn’t help that the Athlon 64 X2 doesn’t sport an unlocked multiplier), we were still able to manipulate the board’s front side bus setting. The 2.4 GHz chip was good for 2.7 GHz, though not quite stably. It turned out that 2.64 GHz was manageable at DDR400 settings and CAS 2.5 timings. With those results in mind, we realized WME 9 results 20 seconds faster than the stock configuration, 3DMark05 scores 70 points higher, Sandra 2005 memory bandwidth scores above 6.3 GBps, and Half-Life 2 frame rates almost match the Athlon 64 FX-55 exactly. Though perhaps not an ideal overclocking platform, the methodical gamer should be able to extract the same performance from a 4800+ as you’d get from an FX-55 in single-threaded apps.
| System Setup | Page:: ( 4 / 12 ) |
System Setup
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4 GHz)
AMD Opteron 875 (2.2 GHz)
AMD Opteron 252 (2.6 GHz)
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (3.2 GHz)
Intel Pentium 4 570J (3.8 GHz)
Intel Pentium 4 540J (3.2 GHz)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (2.6 GHz)
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4 GHz)
ASUS K8N-DL nForce Professional Motherboard
Intel D955XBK 955X Express Motherboard
Intel D925XECV2 925XE Express Motherboard
ASUS A8N-SLI nForce4 SLI Motherboard
1GB Corsair DDR-400 CAS 2 Registered Memory (2x512MB)
1GB Micron DDR2-667 CAS 5 (2x512MB)
1GB Corsair DDR2-533 CAS 3 Pro Series Memory (2x512MB)
1GB Corsair DDR-400 CAS 2 Xpert Series Memory (2x512MB)
ATI RADEON X850 XT
Catylst 5.3
Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 400GB
Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2
DirectX 9.0c
Desktop resolution 1024x768, 32-bit color, 85Hz refresh
All power saving options were turned off, as were the Automatic Update and System Restore services. Graphics options under the ‘Performance’ tab were all disabled for maximum performance.
As you’ll see, we’re again doing a few things differently. Baseline benchmarks now begin at 1024x768. Although it’s certainly relevant to show off performance at 800x600 or 640x480, where you’d typically see the greatest differences between processor and platforms, those settings are really falling by the wayside and in no way reflect actual game play. You’ll be surprised nonetheless. Even at 1024x768, there’s plenty of difference between competing chips.
Benchmarks
Windows Media Encoder 9
3DMark05
PCMark04
Cinebench2003
Doom 3
Half-Life 2
SiSoft Sandra 2005
| Windows Media Encoder 9 | Page:: ( 5 / 12 ) |
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9
Notes
We see some pretty amazing results in Media Encoder 9 with the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ running at an aggressive 2.4 GHz and complemented by aggressively tuned DDR400 memory. Not only does the chip simply trounce every single-core offering from AMD (including the 2.6 GHz Opteron 252, but it also blows right past Intel’s dual-core Extreme Edition 840. It even cruises on by the Opteron 875, a dual-core chip running 200 MHz slower. The 4800+ very nearly halves the encoding time of AMD’s FX-55.
| 3DMark05 | Page:: ( 6 / 12 ) |
Futuremark 3DMark05
Notes
The first half of Futuremark’s 3DMark05 metric is designed to measure graphics performance. It isn’t optimized to highlight dual-core processing and as such doesn’t demonstrate an appreciable gain. The single-core FX-55 and Opteron 252 processors hold the edge with little effort when frequency matters most.
The second half is, however, intended to expose threading performance. And it does. In a big way. The Athlon 64 X2 4800+ takes a first place finish followed by the server-class Opteron 875. Intel’s Extreme Edition 840 gets a piece of the action and it followed by the Pentium 4 570J, which doesn’t benefit from dual-core but does wield HyperThreading for improved efficiency.
| PCMark04 | Page:: ( 7 / 12 ) |
Futuremark PCMark04
| Cinebench 2003 | Page:: ( 8 / 12 ) |
Maxon Cinema 4D Cinebench 2003
| Doom 3 | Page:: ( 9 / 12 ) |
id Software Doom 3
Notes
Intel’s own documents list Doom 3 as a single-threaded app incapable of exploiting dual-core benefits. Nevertheless, at high resolutions, processor performance isn’t holding us back, anyway. Even if Doom 3 were optimized for multiple threads, the X850 XT in our test bed is the bottleneck.
At least in this one benchmark, it doesn’t matter if you’re running dual-core or not. At 1600x1200 you’re going to get great frame rates so long as your graphics card is up to the task.
| Half-Life 2 | Page:: ( 10 / 12 ) |
Valve Half-Life 2
Notes
AMD makes no false claims when it comes to dual-core and gaming. The 2.6 GHz Athlon 64 FX-55 maintains its edge in Half-Life 2. On the other hand, even the dual-core Athlon 64 4800+ enables impressive numbers compared to any of Intel’s offerings. As the resolution increases and processor performance plays second fiddle to graphics capability, the gap between single-core and dual- shrinks even further. Given the numbers at 1600x1200, it’s definitely worthwhile to give up five frames for the processing horsepower enabled by dual-core.
| SiSoft Sandra 2005 | Page:: ( 11 / 12 ) |
Sandra 2005
| Conclusion | Page:: ( 12 / 12 ) |
Another preconception we had was that because a dual-core Athlon 64 is so complex, to the tune of 233 million transistors, overclocking would be severely disappointing. To the contrary, we hit 2.7 GHz and managed to get it stable at 2.64 GHz. While not monumental by any means, the ability to pace the fastest gaming chip on the market and enable the absolute best threaded performance currently available makes the 4800+ a valuable jewel indeed.
The real sticking point is going to be availability. AMD is claiming that product will be out there by June, but primarily through system builders. And even then, European markets may see more dual-core than North America. Current indications suggest it could be Q4 before the do-it-yourselfers see any significant number of Athlon 64 X2 processors with which to play. The true irony here is that AMD prides itself on stifling announcements until it’s ready with the hardware to satisfy demand. This time around, there’s no room to point fingers. At least the dual-core Opteron 800-series was ready as planned, right?
So, at the end of the day, AMD’s dual-core desktop chip offers the most elegant design, the smoothest upgrade path, and without question, the best performance. There’s an excusable compromise in non-threaded performance to go along with the jump in multi-tasked and multi-threaded speed, too. AMD knows it has the upper hand here and is asking a premium price in response. Whether or not you bite will depend on how much you’re willing to spend. If it turns out that the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ overclocks beyond the 4800+, enthusiasts will likely take notice. Then again, AMD has to make the processors available first. When it does, even gamers should get excited about this one.