AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+. Diagonal races
Author:
Date: 26.12.2006
|
|
Typical roundup materials devoted to CPU tests are normally biased towards two extremes. As a rule, on the moment of release of new chips they test and compare top-end models, while putting an emphasis at value chips in the "off-season". As regards the processors of the pricing range in which the performance is no longer at the peak and the price is affordable, the tests are normally not conducted because we normally do them once respective specimen arrives at the test lab.
To be honest, AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ arrived at our test lab over a month ago, and we've always been pressed for time to complete the research to the end. That does not at all mean that the test platform was idle in the dusty corner – on the contrary, it's just the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in combination with the ASUS M2N32-SLI DELUXE motherboard based on which we ran the first express roundup test of performance of the platform powered by Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista RC2 (read the article Using Windows Vista. Part III: installation, performance, licensing).
 Some might think of publishing an article on testing the capabilities of CPU AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ right on the eve of year 2007 a bit belated, especially because we recently published a research into dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+. Perhaps, it is a bit late, but not late for the urgency of the topic – CPUs like other components turn cheaper with time, and thus become more affordable to the wide groups of buyers. Moreover, the recent statement of AMD's top management that DirectX 10 won't be topical until the second half of 2007 (made regarding the graphic cards), as well as lack of interest towards support for the new generation DDR3 memory in desktop PCs based on AMD chips at least no earlier than year 2008, suggests that if Athlon 64 X2 5000+ eventually becomes a middling solution, in any case the Socket AM2 platform its current form will be topical long enough.
Anyway, let's leave the analytical forecasts and reasoning and move on to the practical side. And the first question which those who wish to compare the performance of Athlon 64 X2 5000+ versus some competitor by Intel will come up against is of course the choice of reasonable criteria for comparison.
Let's be frank - things are really bad at that for manufacturers of modern processors because there is almost no technical parameter to be used for comparison of chips. Is it the L2 cache size, its organization, the system bus speed (HT), and the principle of interaction with memory, or finally the clock speed? No, no, and no, because architectures have left us no chance for an adequate comparison.
Then what is left is the good old and proven method - the price. All in all, there does exist something used for reference at Intel and AMD who present comparable prices for CPUs and keep them at a certain level for some time. So let's see what return each dollar invested into purchase of a processor at an approximately comparable price will give, which is a bit more than 300 USD these days. Proceeding from the price criterion, the closest "opponent" to Athlon 64 X2 5000+ is Intel Core 2 Duo E6600.
That's about all the methodology, and for the purity of experiment let's mention how the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 came to the test lab. All is very simple - for that we used a preliminarily prepared test platform based on Core 2 Extreme X6800 – just that one which took part in our first test of the new architecture named Core 2 Duo processors: shock and awe.
Well, what do we get? Both Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Core 2 Duo E6600 are built on the Conroe core, both offer 4 MB L2 cache, support for FSB=1066 MHz and are based on Socket LGA775. The major distinction between them, of course if we disregard the price, TDP and other details which don't matter now, is the multiplier. Yes, it is just the multiplier х11 in Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2,93 GHz) which we changed to х9 (the chip allows for that) in order to emulate quite an adequate model of the CPU Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4 GHz).
I suspect that such method might not be to the liking of some, but let's not forget that this platform was to a larger extent used for "test-driving" the new methodology of tests in which the possible insignificant deviation from statistical error is not critical. Now let's move on to describing the test benches and test conditions.
The testing procedure
CPU Athlon 64 X2 5000+ built on the version of working name Windsor (Revision F), offers the core clock speed 2.60 GHz, 2 х 128 K L1 cache and 2 х 512 K L2 cache. The chip supports the HyperTransport bus with the clock speed 2 GHz and is equipped with an integrated memory controller with support for 2-channel DDR2-800/667/533/400 memory modules.
Among the key specifications is the comparatively new 940-pin Socket AM2, production at the lines following the 90-nm process technology and using SOI, support for the AMD Virtualization (AMD-V, formerly - Pacifica) and reduced power consumption as compared to the predecessors: the TDP of just the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ chip is rated at 89 W. In the specifications of the chip, we should also mention 153.8 mln transistors, core area 183 mm, T.Case (Max) 55-70°, the core supply voltage 1.30-1.35 V, ICC (Max) 66.2 A.
We tested Athlon 64 X2 5000+ on the base of a system with the following components:
- Motherboard ASUS M2N32-SLI DELUXE of ATX form factor, based on NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI chipset
- Memory – 2 x 512 MB Corsair CM2X512-8500 PC2-6400 800 MHz
- Graphic subsystem ATI X1900 XTX CrossFire Edition 512 MB (Catalyst 6.14.10.6635)
- Operating system – Windows XP (5.1.2600), SP2, DX9.0c
The comparable system for "emulation" of the Core 2 Duo E6600 chip had the following specifications:
- Motherboard Intel D975XBX, ATX form factor, Intel 975X Express chipset with the most recent BIOS version (Rev. 1209)
- Memory – 2 x 512 MB Corsair CM2X512-8500 PC2-6400 800 MHz
- Graphic subsystem ATI X1900 XTX CrossFire Edition 512 MB (Catalyst 6.14.10.6635)
- Operating system – Windows XP (5.1.2600), SP2, DX9.0c
I must admit, the major task of that test was not only to try the CPU in all possible ways at extreme settings and through the maximum number of tests, but also testing with various benchmarks including the debut "test-driving" of test suites new to our test lab. As a result, some least interesting results - e.g. those related to games, are not included into the review as having little visual experience, although some were indeed added to the "armory" of our test lab.
Next
 |
Content: |
 |
|
|
Top Stories: |
|
 |
|
MoBo:
|
|
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
|
