The processor market can be divided into two parts. The first consists of high-end PCs using powerful and prestigious chips from AMD or Intel, alternately outperforming each other. And the second part is distinguished by large volumes of supplies of cut-down computers, the main thing for which is a low price, due to a decrease in functions or performance.

To reach this important business sector, which is usually overlooked by the press and power users, AMD and Intel have created separate brands of low-cost processors. AMD first entered the market with the Duron models, which were followed by the Sempron line. Intel, on the other hand, produces a large number of not very attractive Celeron processors. Both "low-end" processors are largely identical to the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4, but they either have a reduced frequency or a reduced feature set.

For example, if Athlon 64 processors ship with 512 KB or 1 MB of L2 cache and run at a maximum clock speed of 2.8 GHz ( FX-57), then Sempron chips are equipped with only 128 or 256 KB of L2 cache, and clock speeds vary from 1.6 to 2.0 GHz. In the Intel world, the situation is the same: the fastest Celeron chips operate at 3.06 GHz, while they have 256 KB of L2 cache, and the bus frequency is only 133 MHz (FSB533). Note that the Pentium 4 family has already reached 3.8 GHz, and the L2 cache has grown to 2 MB. In addition, top models work with FSB 266 MHz (FSB1066).

There are two ways to manufacture cheap processors. It is possible to create a new chip with a truncated L2 cache based on the existing architecture, which allows squeezing as many chips as possible from one substrate. Or you can take the same crystal as for full-fledged processors, and cut down the feature set and cache from it. And the output of suitable crystals is unlikely to be a concern here, since the clock frequencies are still relatively low.

Sempron processors are currently only available for Socket A (462) or Socket 754. Moreover, the Socket A versions are nothing more than Athlon XP Thoroughbred-B cores called Sempron. As a result, Sempron for Socket A works on almost all motherboards ah Socket A that support 166 MHz FSB (FSB333), sometimes even without BIOS upgrade.

The soundness of this decision can be judged by looking at typical computer markets in China or other developing countries like South America. They are dominated by cheap systems, which, for example, AMD gives large sales volumes. Socket A motherboards contribute a lot to this success, prices for which today are out of competition due to the obsolescence of the platform.

At the same time, Sempron processors for Socket 754 take advantage of the characteristics of the AMD64 line. Let's start with the built-in DDR400 memory controller, which runs on full frequency processor, improving system performance. All Semprons for Socket 754 support the SSE2 instruction set, unlike the Socket A versions. Finally, there is the prospect of upgrading a machine with a cheap Sempron to Athlon 64 for Socket 754 - up to 3700+.

At the same time, the future of Socket 754 is obvious today: it will give way to Socket 939, as well as Socket M2, which should be released next year. As a result, the next generation of Sempron processors will have dual-channel memory access. Also, buying a Socket 754 system today will prevent you from moving to dual-core processors in the future.

The new chip is based on AMD's 90nm Palermo core and uses 256KB of L2 cache. In principle, the size of the L2 cache does not really affect performance, as you will see in the tests, however, it is the size of the cache that is often important characteristic, by which AMD distinguishes its models. However, the clock frequency is still in the first place.

As for the thermal package (TDP), nothing has changed here - still 62 watts. However, we did notice a slightly lower core temperature compared to the Sempron on the 130nm Paris core. The differences with the Oakville core are, as one might expect, minimal.

Another news is support for 64-bit AMD64 extensions. As we assume, they are present in all current AMD processors, but in some models 64-bit extensions were disabled - until this day. Therefore, Sempron 64 users (3400+ only) can install Windows XP x64 edition, just like happy owners of Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 600 600 series. However, Socket 754 platforms today are unlikely to support more than a couple of gigabytes of memory.

The latest AMD Sempron will cost $134 for 1,000 pieces, which means we'll get the most expensive "budget" CPU in AMD's range. With a clock speed of 2 GHz, it is quite capable of competing with the Athlon 64 3000+ for Socket 939, operating at 1.8 GHz and using a dual-channel DDR400 memory interface. Arises interest Ask: Isn't it better to take a cheap processor for Socket 939?

The Socket 939 platform today has a large assortment of processors and motherboards, a large set of functions and the best prospects for upgrading. On the negative side, of course, we note the price, and for many users this is the main criterion. After all, if you mainly use office applications, does it really matter which system you buy? After all, they all provide sufficient performance.

Unlike the Athlon 64 line, the Sempron line for Socket 754 is simple enough to keep track of:

The first Sempron processor was the 3100+ on a 130nm Paris (CG) core. It was with him that AMD launched a new line of inexpensive processors. In April 2005, Oakville (revision D0) became the first 90nm Sempron. The Oakville core uses 256 KB of L2 cache and supports the SSE3 instruction set, however, the entire L2 cache is not available to all models - Sempron 2600+, 3000+ and 3300+ use only 128 KB.

Today, with the release of the Sempron 3400+, another core has appeared in the line of low-cost processors, which still uses the 90nm process technology, but introduces an improved memory controller, familiar to us from the Athlon 64 Venice and San Diego cores. Another addition to the kernel (revisions E3 and E6) is the SSE3 instruction set, which Intel released in early 2004. Less fast Semprons will also be released on the Palermo core, but so far without support for 64-bit instructions.

A little note about Cool & Quiet: AMD only allows this feature on 3000+ and faster models. To activate, you need to download the processor driver (from the AMD website), after which the operating system will be able to lower the clock speed in several stages, saving energy and reducing heat generation. This strategy is completely different from the Intel way, as both desktop and mobile versions Celeron D processors cannot dynamically downclock. Only the 3+ GHz Pentium 4 600 and Pentium M support SpeedStep.

And here he is. Of course, appearance little has changed since all AMD64/Sempron processors use a metal heat spreader. It connects to the core through a layer of thermally conductive mastic, which helps distribute heat over a large area. In addition, the plate protects the fragile core - too many Athlon XP and Duron processors have failed due to careless installation of the cooler. Intel introduced the heat spreader with the release of the Pentium 4.

Sempron 3400+ is not yet known by CPU-Z, so the core is not detected correctly.

With the release of the 3400+, the Sempron line received another processor, this time with a 256 KB L2 cache.

If you think that SSE3 extensions and support for 64-bit extensions are not needed for a cheap computer, then pay attention to Sempron 3300+. The thermal properties of this core are the same, but the performance differs slightly.

We decided to add three Athlon 64 processors to our test results, which allows us to compare them with Sempron 3300+ and 3400+. Both Athlon 64s entry level for the Socket 939 platform (3000+ and 3200+) cost a little more than 3400+, but they use a full-fledged 512 kB L2 cache and a dual-channel DDR400 memory interface. The price difference between the platforms is $15 and up, depending on the feature set you need.

In addition, we decided to compare the new Sempron with the Athlon 64 3200+ for Socket 754 on the Newcastle core, since we have the A64 equivalent of Sempron at equal clock speeds. Of course, it uses a 130nm Newcastle core without an improved memory controller and SSE3, but we haven't come across a 90nm Athlon 64 for Socket 754 yet.

Test configuration

Tests and settings

Today's announcement of the 64-bit Sempron can be considered a response to the release of 64-bit Celerons by Intel. But is such a function needed for a cheap segment? We believe it will be useful to very few buyers - at least in the near future. Of course, today Windows XP x64 Edition has already been released, but there are very few 64-bit programs and drivers - especially for peripherals. The transition to 64-bit computing for the sake of the transition itself only matters for the IT industry, not for the consumer. In addition, the vast majority of enterprise customers have not even begun the process of validating Windows XP x64 for client seats.

Apart from the 64-bit "dark horse", the new chip does not change things. The increase in model number from Sempron 3300+ to 3400+ is justified only by doubling the L2 cache from 128 to 256 KB. But, as expected, this has little effect on performance.

If you are looking to buy a Sempron processor, we recommend getting a model with the latest Palermo core due to SSE3 support. If you are not interested in 64-bit computing, then there is no particular reason to upgrade to 3400+. By the way, in terms of performance and even price/performance ratio, the entry-level Athlon 64 on a reasonable Socket 939 platform will be the best solution.

A processor from the cheap Celeron D (Sempron) series is a tempting offer. Despite being somewhat reduced? Compared to more expensive versions, the characteristics of these processors ensure that essential applications and even some new games run smoothly.

AMD Sempron 3100+

This model from a series of low-cost processors works correctly with most applications.

Advantages:

A fast modern processor with hardware anti-virus protection, which, however, is difficult to find an inexpensive motherboard.

Advantages:

Relatively cheap processor compatible with inexpensive components.

The processor is from a relatively inexpensive series, it works correctly with most applications.

Advantages:

conclusions

Enough connectors

Modern processors of the Sempron series, designed for the budget segment of the market, differ from full-fledged prototypes - the Athlon 64 processors in a reduced to 128 (or, in some models, up to 256 KB) L2 cache size.

In addition, the HyperTransport bus in Sempron processors operates only at 800 MHz, while in Athlon 64 its frequency can reach 1000 MHz, as a less significant one can be noted the lack of support for Pacifica virtualization technology.

Everything else, including the dual-channel memory controller, support for the 64-bit AMD64 architecture, and the SSE3 instruction set, is available in full.

At the same time, one should not forget that such sophisticated Sempron processors are produced mainly in versions for Socket AM2 and Socket 939.

Older Sempron models for Socket 754, for example, only have a single-channel memory controller.

AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition Driver 19.9.2 Optional

The new AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 19.9.2 Optional driver improves performance in Borderlands 3 and adds support for Radeon Image Sharpening.

Cumulative windows update 10 1903 KB4515384 (added)

On September 10, 2019, Microsoft released a cumulative update for Windows 10 version 1903 - KB4515384 with a number of security improvements and a fix for a bug that broke Windows work Search and caused high CPU usage.

Driver Game Ready GeForce 436.30 WHQL

NVIDIA has released the Game Ready GeForce 436.30 WHQL driver package, which is designed for optimization in games: "Gears 5", "Borderlands 3" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare", "FIFA 20", "The Surge 2" and "Code Vein", fixes a number of bugs seen in previous releases, and expands the list of displays in the G-Sync Compatible category.

AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 19.9.1 Edition Driver

First September issue graphics drivers AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 19.9.1 Edition is optimized for Gears 5.

The first AMD64 architecture processors appeared in April of this year. At that time, AMD introduced the Opteron 200 series server models. They could be used in single and dual processor configurations. Unfortunately, the frequencies of the presented processors (1.41.8 GHz) did not please users very much at first. However, thanks to its unique architecture, Opteron performed well. By autumn the lineup Opteron expanded with both new frequencies and new series. Today, AMD already offers three series of processors for use in one- (series 100), two- (series 200) and four- or eight-processor (series 800) systems. The maximum frequency for Opteron processors is currently 2 GHz (XX6 models).

However, “not by single servers”, and the market was waiting and even demanding to show something really new, massive, inexpensive for everyone. A lot of rumors and assumptions about the frequency, socket, L2 cache size and even the name of the new desktop processors excited the imagination. And in the last third of September, AMD finally revealed its plans to conquer the market.

• AMD Athlon 64 3200+
• AMD Athlon 64FX-51

In addition, the release of processors for notebooks (DTR class (DeskTop Replacement), desktop PC replacement class) with ratings of 3000+ and 3200+ has been announced, but since they differ from Athlon 64 only in the absence of a cover covering the crystal, there is not much to talk about them yet. we will, but just a little later we will publish an article about such a processor. We only note that mobile technology dynamic change in frequency and voltage Cool "n" Quiet can be enabled for all processors of the AMD64 architecture, it's just a matter of supporting such functionality motherboard. And of course, for now, Mobile Athlon 64 processors can only be used in DTR systems: they consume up to 89 watts for example, the 3000+ version consumes 81 watts. By the way, this figure for Opteron is 85 W for junior models and 89 W for 2.0 GHz and higher (the same applies to Athlon 64/Athlon 64 FX) for AMD64 architecture processors of all lines, power consumption is determined solely by frequency.

So, now let's try to put everything in its place. To get started, we advise you to read our past materials on the AMD64 architecture:

• Testing Athlon 64 and Opteron Processors in Real Applications

Since a lot has already been said and written about Opteron processors, we will describe the new products in the form of differences from them, since the cores are almost the same for all.

The processor called Athlon 64 uses Socket 754 and has a single-channel integrated memory controller with support for DDR400 (not registered!). It replaced the Athlon XP, which will be gradually forced out of the market. Despite the fact that the performance index of the new processor is the same as that of its predecessor (and the frequency is even lower), significant differences in the architecture allow us to hope that it will outperform Athlon XP 3200+ in speed.

With the Athlon 64 FX it's even easier - at the time of the announcement, it differed from the Opteron only in the frequency, which for the FX-51 model is 2.2 GHz. Of course, formally there is also a difference in support for DDR400 memory, however, as we will see later, this does not count :). AMD is positioning this processor as a high-end desktop model. Although, given its complete interchangeability with the Opteron (in single-processor systems), it becomes clear that the "positioning" is very shaky, and can easily be ignored by particularly smart buyers. :)

Despite the fact that both sockets have the same spacing of 1.27 mm between pins in the grid, Socket 754 is not a subset of Socket 940, since its pins are located in a 29 by 29 mm square versus 31 by 31 mm for the 940. Therefore, unlike, for example, the well-known i865/i875 and i848 pair, manufacturers will have to create different board designs for these products.

However, both sockets use the same cooling device mounting system.

The base, on which the cooler is actually attached, consists of two parts: a metal substrate and a plastic frame, which are located with different parties motherboard and fastened with two screws. The cooler itself is attached to the frame with two powerful latches.

The coolers we used had a copper base and welded copper fins. The design is similar to the well-known Thermaltake Volcano 7+/11+ models. By the way, according to the abundance of signs of this trademark on different parts boxed cooler, it can be assumed that it was this company that helped AMD in the development of cooling systems for new processors. Dimensions different models were a little different. The boxed version from the Opteron 240 (working seamlessly with faster processors, including the Opteron 146) used a 55x75x5mm base and 46 12cm2 fins. The 70x70x15 mm fan from Delta, model AFB0712HBB, had a built-in temperature sensor for speed control (maximum value 4300 rpm). The variant from Thermaltake had different parameters: a 65x60x4 base and 36 18 cm 2 fins, the same fan, but without a sensor. In addition to all-copper versions, there was one aluminum version with a copper cylinder inside. In addition, it is possible to use Zalman CNPS7000-Cu (however, it is fastened with screws and therefore is not very convenient for frequent replacements).

In principle, the design of the cooler assumes that it also slightly blows the memory modules located next to the processor, however, one of the versions used had ribs oriented along the long side of the socket and therefore (at least on the tested boards) is unsuitable for this purpose.

As far as noise is concerned, all fans are very quiet (Delta has a rated noise level of 38.5 dBA at maximum speed). So, from this point of view, the new AMD products are all right, despite the fact that they have almost twice as many transistors in the core as the Athlon XP (105.9 million versus 54.3).

Here is a summary table of the parameters of old and new processors that claim a place in system block desktop PC. The Opteron looks a bit alien here, of course, and is presented rather for visual comparison with Athlon 64 FX. However, the price of the 100 series models is not so terrible from $250.

* determined by chipset

Despite the fact that this table contains official data, there is an inaccuracy in it in fact, Opteron processors (we checked both models of the early revision B3 and the latest C0) work fine with DDR400 memory too! The point, it turns out, is only that there were no registered modules with such a speed in April. Besides, memory validation for server systems is not a fast process. Let's assume that AMD just played it safe.

As for the future plans of the company, then only one thing can be assumed - the frequencies will increase. The previous architecture (Barton core) reached 2.2 GHz, and the Athlon 64 FX starts from there. So hopefully there will be next, faster processors, but the revolutionary part is over. The next big step is moving to 90nm technology.

Externally, the processors practically do not differ from each other. Only the Athlon 64 has a case similar to the latest "green" Athlon XP with an organic base, while the Athlon 64 FX and Opteron have a ceramic case. And of course, they are all closed with a metal lid.

As for the labeling, one sentence will not do here :), but we will try, based on the current information, to decipher at least something. Note that this information is not strictly official, so changes and additions are possible in the future.

We dealt with the following processors:

• Opteron 240: OSA240CCO5AH
• Opteron 244: OSA244CEP5AL
• Opteron 146: OSA146CEP5AK
• Athlon 64 FX-51: ADAFX51CEP5AK
• Athlon 64 3200+: ADA3200AEP5AP

So, the first letter speaks about the brand: O Opteron, A Athlon 64. The second about the application: S Server, D Desktop. Of course, for now we only have combinations of OS and AD, but who knows, maybe AMD will also release a server Athlon 64? :-)

The third letter, according to some sources, defines a certain "Power Limit". However, there are no detailed explanations yet, and all the tested processors have the letter “A” here, so you can’t distinguish them by this parameter yet.

Finally, the fourth point we have number goes models. For the Opteron, these are three digits, the first is the series number, the second is still four, and the last, always even, determines the frequency: from "0" for 1.4 GHz to "6" for 2.0 GHz. For Athlon 64, we see here the performance index in the form of four digits, which correspond to the name of a particular model. The situation is similar with Athlon 64 FX.

The package options follow: A 754-pin OuPGA with cover (for Athlon 64), B 754-pin OuPGA without cover (mobile Athlon 64) and C 940-pin CuPGA also with iron cover for Opteron and Athlon 64 FX .

The next letter shows the core voltage. For the first Opteron we tested it is 1.55V (letter C) and for all others it is 1.50V (letter E). Letters through one to Y are provided, which corresponds to a value of 1.00 V.

The seventh indicator determines the operating temperature of the processor. "O" corresponds to 69°C, "P" 70°C. The next letters in alphabetical order are b. about high temperature, up to "Z" 105 degrees Celsius.

The last digit shows the amount of L2 cache of the processor: 1 64 KB, 2 128 KB, 3 256 KB, 4 512 KB, 5 1 MB. As you can easily see, representatives of the AMD64 architecture do not yet have less than one megabyte of cache.

And finally, the last two letters define the stepping, revision, socket, number of coherent HT buses and all that. The main thing to remember is that if the letters are older than AI, then this is a C0 stepping or higher.

In general, the most important (and easy to remember :-)) are the first three letters that identify the server or desktop processor, and of course the model index, which shows the performance in units known only to the at manufacturer. :-)

Since performance is not the only thing that interests buyers, we will also announce the prices at which the company plans to sell new products: $417 for Athlon 64 3200+ and $733 for Athlon 64 FX-51 ( mobile processors will go for $417 and $278 for the 3200+ and 3000+ models, respectively). In general, prices are at the level of high-end desktop processors, but up to the coveted "$64 for 64 bits!" still very, very far away. On the other hand, this is only the beginning, and we can expect a significant reduction in prices in the coming months, but now all this is only for the very impatient. Well, the number of processors sold will be determined by the results they show in performance tests.

As you remember, during the introduction of Athlon XP, AMD published a list of applications that it used to assign ratings. But using not even a rating, but a code name (FX-51) for a desktop processor, the company once again emphasized its original approach to the concept of "performance".

The modern version of the list of applications used to evaluate speed looks like this:

Of course, compared to the previous version, it has become a little better popular tasks such as encoding media data and archiving have been added. On the other hand, the abundance of synthetic tests like SYSmark and Winstone is a bit confusing. Since it has long been known that any modern processor with a frequency of about 2 GHz is able to provide decent work in modern office applications. Of course, there are examples of getting 1000 emails with packed attachments per day and constant checking of all this (including a two-gigabyte mail database) by an antivirus, but in this case it is not hardware that needs to be upgraded :-), and the indicated synthetics do not lose such a situation.

We also throw out 3DMark tests with "D3D Software T&L" there, because if a person already spent money on such a processor and did not buy a decent video card, then, apparently, he will not play on a computer.

With some games like QuakeIII, it's also not very clear whether it's worth buying new processor to increase the number of fps from 220 to 290? :-) Yes, and in the test guide from AMD, it sometimes slips "Select "Preferences" to "Speed". On the one hand, of course, it is clear that we do not want to test a video card, but

In general, what remains is encoding to MP3 (although 5-10 minutes per disc, why is it faster? :-)), conversion to MPEG2 (but it’s also not clear why this should be done from RAW AVI? All discs are large and fast to store more than one and a half gigabytes per minute?), but “MPEG2 to MPEG4” definitely continues to unnerve with its slowness.

Clearly, there are not enough rendering class tasks and computational tasks. Apparently, the company refers these applications to workstations. In general, perhaps, this is correct, since, according to numerous surveys, powerful PCs at home are usually used for you know what :-). However, the positioning (again, this is a suspicious word :-)) of the Athlon 64 FX processor can easily be corrected towards "entry-level workstations", if it shows a decent speed in these applications.

64-bit applications and Windows XP for AMD64

We want to warn you in advance that despite the numbers "64" in the name, we will not really use 64-bit extensions on desktops soon. Of course, enthusiasts can now try to taste them using the appropriate Linux versions, however, the real mass distribution of the 64-bit mode will begin only with the release by Microsoft of its Windows OS for this platform. At the moment the company is working on two versions of OS server and desktop. Both of them already exist in the form of beta versions. We had an opportunity to get acquainted with the pre-release of Windows XP for AMD64.

As you can see in the screenshot, the launch of the usual Microsoft Office XP, the VirtualDub program with the DivX codec, and the FAR file manager were successful. What can't be said about graphic applications. Despite "full compatibility", an attempt to run the games QuakeIII and Return to Castle Wolfenstein ended in failure (the games could not be configured graphics system). While Serious Sam: The Second Encounter and Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo worked without problems. As for speed, its performance in 3D applications, which are games, is very much influenced by video card drivers. AT this case NVIDIA version 50.30 detonators from May of this year missed the stars in the sky and showed a 30% drop in speed compared to Windows XP Pro with driver 45.23. Apparently, it is the porting of drivers under new system(which is mandatory, since the drivers in it must be 64-bit) will be the main problem at first. Note that the OS hides them so that you can only find the actual driver files manually in Explorer. An attempt to find them by searching in the explorer or the FAR file manager ended in failure. There are also doubts about the version of the NVIDIA driver being used, since the number 50.40 and the date August 8 this year appear in the properties of the driver file.

Of course, most console applications should also not have problems running under this version of the OS. The exceptions are programs that use 16-bit code (for example, in libraries), and those that run special system drivers for their work, for example, to access hardware resources (one of these programs is a utility for obtaining information about the processor, motherboard board and memory, CPU-Z was not able to show all information in full under Windows XP for AMD64). Well, the fact that the performance of win32 applications (not graphical ones) in the new OS is at least no worse than in the 32-bit version is also evidenced by the fact that the SPEC CPU2000 test results, some subtests of which are very sensitive to memory speed , practically do not change when working in Windows XP for AMD64.

Chipsets

Chipsets for processors of the AMD64 architecture differ in that in the case of a desktop application, they practically do not affect the speed. Judge for yourself: the memory in such systems is connected directly to the processor, and the only formally "fat" consumer of information the video card has long acquired its large and fast memory. So the main streams of information circulate outside the chipset. Yes, of course, there is network and storage, but standard 100BaseTX requires only about 10 MB / s, and hard drives, although improving the interface towards 150 MB / s, but (also for desktops) by themselves are only approaching read speeds with surface of the order of 7080 MB/s.

Of course, for workstations we also have gigabit network controllers and RAID arrays on hard drives, but that's a completely different story.

Another interesting property of chipsets is their versatility and scalability. Since they communicate with the processor(s) exclusively via the standard HyperTransport bus, taking into account the positive experience with Socket A, manufacturers can count on a long life of their developments. Well, the fact that any chipset (at least formally) can work with one or two or more processors allows you to position one product on several markets at the same time.

However, the first generation of desktop chipsets have a common drawback - they only support one HT bus. As you may remember from previous posts, the AMD8000 chipset has excellent expandability, since most chips have two HT buses and can be connected in series (although the “output” bus is only eight-bit). Since the current edition of HT supports transfer rates up to 6.4 GB / s, this eliminates the bottleneck for six PCI-X buses, twelve PCI 2.2 64 bit / 66 MHz, or 48 regular PCI 32 bit / 33 MHz.

Unfortunately, existing non-AMD solutions lack such capabilities and are limited to conventional PCs, and to move to the next level, manufacturers will have to come up with something new.

Note that in addition to the products from NVIDIA () and VIA () considered today, products from ALI () and SiS () have also entered the chipset market for new AMD processors. Now these are two-chip solutions, but single-chip products are also in the plans. In addition, chipsets with PCI Express and 3GIO bus support are expected to appear in the future. By this time, ATI also promises to present its chipsets, including the variant with integrated graphics.

NVIDIA

One of the first third-party chipsets for AMD processors was NVIDIA nForce3 Pro 150. This single-chip solution combines both a bridge to support AGP and PCI buses, and all controllers standard for the south bridge:

• 2 PATA/IDE channels with UltraATA 133 and RAID support
• Fast Ethernet network controller
• 6 USB 2.0 ports
• AC "97 sound controller with support for 5.1 and digital output

The next version of the chipset with index 250 is planned to include a gigabit network controller, 2 PATA ports and 4 SATA ports. Well, today's boards use external chips for SATA and Gigabit Ethernet.

Motherboards based on this chipset participate in testing today: ASUS SK8N for Socket 940 and Gigabyte K8NNXP for Socket 754.

Since the main topic of the article is new processors, here we will only give brief characteristics of the boards, and leave a detailed comparison until next time.

Note that Athlon 64 processors have some limitations in terms of speeds and memory size, caused by the use of non-registered modules. In particular, only 2 modules can be used at 400 MHz, which limits the maximum amount random access memory in this case up to 2 GB.

As it usually happens, the manufacturer tries to fill the first products for the new architecture to the maximum, believing that the first buyers have a lot of money and can afford to spend a significant amount. So it happened with SK8N and K8NNXP. Now they can be purchased for about $200. Of course, this is too much for the mass market. Of course, we will soon see versions without FireWire and SATA controllers, which will be cheaper. And daily announcements from other manufacturers indicate future competition in the motherboard market for new AMD processors, which will also lead to lower prices.

VIA

VIA also couldn't refuse such a fresh market and released its own chipset for the new AMD VIA K8T800 processors. By the way, according to the first reviews of Athlon 64 on the Web, you should also remember the phantom called K8T400M (or even K8M400 with an integrated video controller), which did not reach mass production of motherboards. While AMD was delaying the release of its desktop processor, VIA released new version of her chipset :-) (although, most likely, she simply renamed the old one).

Unlike the nForce3 chipset, it is made in an almost classic version with a northbridge and a southbridge, which are connected by an 8X V-Link bus with throughput 533 MB / s (some sources indicate a figure of 1 GB / s). The high-end southbridge uses the VT8237 chip (already known from KT600 boards), which supports:

• eight USB 2.0 ports
• two Parallel ATA133/100/66 ports supporting up to 4 devices
• sound solutions from VIA: VIA Vinyl 5.1 & Vinyl Gold 7.1
• two SATA ports with RAID support (V-RAID: RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 0+1, JBOD)
• integrated 10/100 BaseT network controller
• Gigabit Ethernet companion controller connection

As one of the advantages of its chipset, the company presents Hyper8 technology, behind the beautiful name of which lies support for the HyperTransport bus mode between the processor and the chipset 16 bit/800 MHz in both directions.

Indeed, for nForce3 boards these parameters are "only" 8 bit/600 MHz in one direction and 16 bit/600 MHz in the other. However, such a formally large difference does not play any role today, since the only serious consumer of data in any chipset for AMD64 is the video controller on the AGP bus, which is currently almost not loaded during real operation. Perhaps in the future, for workstations and servers with PCI-X and PCI Express buses, this will be important, but now it is somewhat premature. Because the Board BIOS on the K8T800 allows you to adjust the bit depth and frequency of the HT bus, we conducted express testing in Return to Castle Wolfenstein and SPECviewperf and did not reveal any differences in speed when working in these modes.

ASUS K8V Deluxe and MSI K8T Neo motherboards for Socket 754 took part in the tests. The test results of the boards are almost the same. For definiteness, the diagrams show indicators of the board from ASUS. But we advise you to treat the results with caution, since beta versions of the BIOS were used, and a lot can change with the release.

As you can see from the table, both models are typical examples of high-end motherboards. Both use external gigabit network adapters, 5.1 sound controllers allow you to connect speakers through optical and coaxial digital outputs. Also impressive is the possible number of drives 6 each connects only to south bridge and an external ATA/RAID controller is still in stock.

Note that on ASUS board a special slot is installed for connecting your own wireless radio access card (comes with the Deluxe version) of the 802.11b standard (11 Mbps).

Configurations

Processors:

• AMD Athlon XP 3200+
• AMD Athlon 64 3200+
• AMD Athlon 64FX-51
• AMD Opteron 146
• Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz

Motherboards:

• Athlon XP (Socket A): Albatron KX18D Pro II (nForce2 Ultra 400)
• Athlon 64 (Socket 754): Gigabyte K8NNXP (nForce3 Pro 150), ASUS K8V Deluxe (K8T800)
• Athlon 64 FX, Opteron (Socket 940): ASUS SK8N (nForce3 Pro 150)
• Pentium 4 (Socket 478): ASUS P4C800 Deluxe (i875P)

• two 256 MB Kingmax DDR400 modules (2-3-3-5) for Athlon 64, Athlon XP and Pentium 4 systems
• two 512 MB modules from Legacy Electronics DDR400 ECC Registered (2.5-3-3-5) for systems based on Athlon 64 FX-51 and Opteron (also used as DDR333 with the same timings), ECC control was disabled in the BIOS.

Video card:

• ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB

HDD:

• Western Digital WD360 (SATA, 10000 rpm)

Software and drivers:

• Windows XP Pro SP1
• DirectX 9.0b
• set of drivers for NVIDIA nForce3 version 3.44
• drivers Intel chipset version 5.0.2.1003
• ATI CATALYST 3.7 video driver

Test results

First, we note that the methodology for testing systems in this article differs from that used earlier. So the results cannot be directly compared. Moreover, we also changed the video card.

Of course, we did not use the entire list of applications proposed by AMD. This time we'll look at gaming, media encoding, and archiving as the most CPU-intensive desktop applications.

To improve accuracy, all tests on real applications were run at least three times, and the median was chosen for the report.

Games

The following applications were used for gaming performance testing:

• Return to Castle Wolfenstein 1.41, id Software/Activision
• Serious Sam: The Second Encounter 1.07, Croteam/GodGames
• Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo 2206, Digital Extreme/Epic Games

The demo scenes recorded in these programs (checkpoint, Grand Cathedral, botmatch-antalus, flyby-antalus) were played in different resolutions with optimization of the Quality settings set in the game itself. No changes were made to the graphics card drivers other than disabling VSync.

Note that the results showed a high dependence of speed on resolution and, consequently, on the video card. Only the number of fps in the botmatch-antalus scene practically did not decrease with an increase in resolution. 1024x768 results are selected for the report. When playing at 800x600, the gap between the participants will be larger, while at 1600x1200 it will noticeably decrease. And if you use the anti-aliasing and anisotropy modes, then it may turn out that there will be no difference in the results at all.

In this rather old game, Intel processors have always been favorites. However, with the release of 64-bit processors from AMD, the situation has changed dramatically. The new processors with a frequency of 2 GHz are on a par with the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, and the Athlon 64 FX increases its result by almost 10% in proportion to the frequency and takes the lead.

This game already loves AMD products more. And if earlier we had parity between Athlon XP 3200+ and Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, now the new processors are taking the lead. Like last time, the leader is Athlon 64 FX-51.

Let's also look at the dependence of the results on the resolution. The following two charts only show data for the Athlon 64 FX-51 and Pentium 4 3.2 GHz.

We see that RtCW is an easy task for the ATI RADEON 9800 Pro, and the results are almost independent of the resolution. The advantage of Athlon 64 FX is from 10 to 6% depending on the resolution.

For Serious Sam: The Second Encounter the situation is different at 1600x1200 the results of the systems are almost the same, but at 800x600 the difference is almost 30%.

In this game, the results generally repeat the data for Serious Sam: The Second Encounter. However, the spread of indicators in the flyby test is smaller and amounts to only 10%, while in the botmatch demo, which is more difficult for the processor, the leader outperforms the competitor by 25%.

For comparison, we also tested the two most fast systems and with an NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra video card (driver 45.23).

On the whole, the alignment of forces remains the same in this case: Athlon 64 FX-51 outperforms Pentium 4 3.2 GHz from 7.5% in RtCW to 26.7% in UT2003 botmatch.

media coding

As before, two popular tasks are used: encoding music to MP3 format and video encoding to MPEG4(DivX) format. However, this time different settings and versions of the programs are used.

For the first task, we took the Lame 3.93 codec and used three settings:

• --preset standard -m s
• --preset 192 -ms
• --preset cbr 192 -m s

All of them create files of approximately the same size with an average bitrate of 192 Kbps. The original was a 71-minute WAV file (rewritten from CD-DA).

In this test, we see a clear dependence of the encoding speed on the frequency, and the Athlon XP 3200+ easily overtakes all new AMD processors with a frequency of 2.0 GHz and even slightly outperforms the Athlon 64 FX-51. And the product from Intel takes the lead with its 3.2 GHz. Its separation from the nearest pursuer is about 10%.

Video encoding in DivX (codec version 5.1) was made from a movie trailer in MPEG2 format (length 2:25, resolution 720x576) in the VirtualDub program (with support for reading MPEG2 format, version 1.5.4) using crop, deinterlace and resize filters.

And again the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz is in the lead, but this time the Athlon 64 FX-51 almost caught up with it. But the Athlon XP 3200+ failed badly on this task. In principle, we can assume that the problem is the lack of SSE2 in the latter, but we have practically no information about SIMD support for the DivX codec, so we cannot say that this is the case. Just like with Lame, it is noticeable that the results are practically independent of the memory speed.

Archiving

Two programs were used for archiving: the console version of RAR (version 3.20) and 7-Zip (version 3.09.01 beta). Maximum compression settings: -m5 for RAR and -mx9 for 7-Zip.

The following were used as input files:

• Linux kernel sources (about 150 MB)
• drivers for NVIDIA graphics cards (approximately 100 MB)

We have already used the 7-Zip archiver before. It shows one of the best results in terms of compression ratio, but you have to pay for this with a long time. As an example, the table shows the efficiency in the maximum compression mode (the ratio of the volumes of the input and output files) and the running time of archivers in seconds. The zip format is the win32 console version of the pkzip archiver version 2.50 from PKWARE.

By the way, this table shows why we excluded archiving in the zip format from the tests its speed is determined rather by the parameters hard drive than the processor. And the compression ratio is noticeably lower than that of competitors.

The only test where we see a noticeable difference in Athlon 64 performance on different chipsets. Moreover, its speed on nForce3 is the best among all participants. The difference between this configuration and the rest is the use of a Sil3512 SATA controller. Perhaps this is the case, or maybe there is some other secret in the NVIDIA chipset.

If we compare Pentium 4 3.2 GHz and Athlon 64 FX-51, then the latter is slightly ahead this time.

Here we have a different situation. The test shows a dependence on both memory speed (which is not surprising, since 7-Zip takes more than 300 MB of RAM when archiving test files) and processor frequency. And it seems that he likes the integrated controller in AMD processors more because of the lower delays. And again in this test Athlon 64 on nForce3 shows a good result and almost catches up with the leader.

conclusions

Let's look at the final table of results:

So, we see that the new AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 processor in gaming applications shows excellent performance, 10 percent or more ahead of its direct competitor Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz. However, let's not forget that the results strongly depend on the video card used, and if your 3D accelerator is not of the highest class, then you need to go to the store and buy it as soon as possible :-), otherwise you may not notice the effect of the money spent on the processor.

In MP3 encoding, the Intel product is unrivaled the high core frequency solves everything in this task. Tests show that the memory subsystem in this case has almost no noticeable effect on the result.

MPEG2 to DivX encoding is a more complex task, both core speed and processor/memory bus performance are important here. So Athlon 64 FX is practically catching up with Pentium 4. Other AMD processors show better results than their predecessor Athlon XP.

In archiving tasks, the Athlon 64 FX is also ahead of the competition. And for 7-Zip, this is the merit of the integrated memory controller, which provided low memory access latencies.

As regards the comparison of NVIDIA and VIA chipsets for Athlon 64, in all tests, except for archiving to RAR, their results practically do not differ. However, please consider the results of K8T800 as preliminary.

In general, our previous assumptions about the performance of the new AMD processors came true. Yes, they are good, but not as good as everyone would like. Of course, the potential of architecture is also visible on these samples, but buyers are usually not interested in abstract reasoning, but in real results. It's hard to say whether the Athlon XP core has exhausted itself, but AMD really needed to introduce something new and original. And I think she succeeded.

Of course, today we have not reviewed all the tests of the new processor, but for a start it is quite enough. Ahead we have a discussion of the results of tests on professional applications, as well as numerous synthetics.

And finally, let's try to figure out why AMD suddenly found such an interesting processor as the Athlon 64 FX-51 , which in all respects is very reminiscent of the delayed Opteron 148. As one of the scenarios, and quite plausible, we propose the following.

Starting from April, the development of the Opteron line went on as usual the frequency increased, new series were released. At the same time, the operation of the Athlon 64 processor was also tested, which, unlike the Opteron, used a single-channel memory controller, and it is probably impossible to say that it was “developed separately from the Opteron”. And the use of non-registered modules also seems natural for a desktop processor. It is not very clear why, but the frequency of the first Athlon 64 was 2.0 GHz. This was obviously not enough to compete with the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz. In addition, having a single-channel memory controller, the processor was outperformed by its competitor on this formal basis. And this despite today's results in games the Athlon 64 3200+ still outperforms its competitor, in archiving too, only the encoding speed in MP3 and DivX let us down.

However, AMD needed a bright and unconditional victory. So, using a 2.2 GHz version of what was basically a server processor with a dual-channel memory controller, and making sure that 400 MHz register modules were already being produced in sufficient volumes, she introduced a new brand Athlon 64 FX, the first representative of which differed from other models in two parameters at once: frequency (cores) and memory speed from Opteron and frequency (cores) and a dual-channel controller from Athlon 64.

This will not hurt sales of the Opteron line, especially since no one bothers to release these processors with a frequency of 2.2 GHz soon. Well, having set a price slightly higher than the cost of the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, AMD has remained in the field of desktop processors.

True, there remains a slight ambiguity associated with the use of registered memory modules with this processor. Many expected AMD's high-end desktop to use conventional modules. But if this happened, then, firstly, it would be possible not to delay the announcement so long, and secondly, the processor could compete with the Opteron 100 series, having a higher frequency and working with cheaper memory. Of course, for most users, register modules (which, in fact, are needed to support large amounts of memory) are associated with the workstation and server market. However, it is strange to assume that the memory controller of the Athlon 64 FX and Opteron needs to be heavily modified to work with conventional modules because the Athlon 64 has no problems with this. So we are again witnessing market games that are far and inexplicable for a simple person.

The fate of the Athlon 64 FX is shrouded in mist. On the one hand, it is impossible to stop increasing AMD megahertz, on the other hand, the Opteron lineup is almost finished: x48 models will follow after x46 models, and then we will have to expand existing system designations. And the FX-51 will most likely be followed by the FX-53 with an increased frequency. Releasing a desktop processor that is exactly the same as a server processor, but with a higher frequency (and the ability to work only in single-processor configurations) means slowing down the pace of conquering the workstation market.

It would be strange to assume that AMD has technical problems with the release of processors with a high core frequency and two or three HT buses to work in multiprocessor configurations. But it is also not serious to expect that the mass market will switch to registered memory.

So under these conditions, AMD is likely to release 2.2 GHz Opteron models, which will remain the company's fastest server processors until the transition to 90nm technology. The Athlon 64 FX will clock up to 2.6 GHz or a little higher and will be AMD's flagship desktop processor. However, given the need to use register memory, it will not ship in large quantities. Although if this restriction is suddenly canceled next year :-), then its chances of becoming widespread will greatly increase. Well, Athlon 64 will successfully replace modern Athlon XP.

AMD is already quite for a long time divides its desktop processors into high-performance (for high-end systems) - FX and X2 series, regular (middle-end) - Athlon 64, and budget (for entry-level systems). The latter were called Sempron. Moreover, during the heyday of the SocketA platform, such a division also took place. True, then AMD had two lines - Athlon and Duron. It was the last line that allowed users to get quite high performance at an affordable price (see the review Desktop processors: Results of 2003).

When switching to 64-bit processors, which were released for socket 754, there was no clear division into regular and budget processors. However, in AMD's policy, one could notice signs of a gradual abandonment of the obsolete SocketA platform. And as soon as the production of Athlon64 Socket939 processors with a dual-channel memory controller was launched, AMD made it clear to users that SocketA was already dead and would not be supported in the future. And for budget systems, all Socket754 processors will be designed. At the same time, the first processors under the Sempron trademark appeared.

It is interesting to note that SocketA processors were (and are) also sold under the Sempron brand. Moreover, if we compare the performance of 64-bit processors with the speed best processors SocketA, the difference was pretty impressive. Therefore, AMD engineers did not use traditional methods of creating cheap processors to form the junior models of the Sempron SocketA budget line. We are talking about cutting features and functionality, such as lowering the frequency of the system bus and reducing the size of the cache memory. As a result, the low-end Sempron SocketA processors were almost exact copies of the Athlon SocketA processors.

Currently, AMD also releases Sempron SocketA processors. In particular, the company's product range includes models 2500+ and 2400+, operating at 1.75GHz and 1.667GHz, respectively (system bus 166MHz; L2 cache memory size - 256Kb). In addition, AMD has another SocketA model - Sempron 3000+ with a clock frequency of 2.0 GHz and L2 capacity = 512Kb. It is clear that from the point of view of an ordinary user, these processors are of no value. But on the other hand, AMD works with large system integrators who have long-term commitments to corporate customers. And in this area, it is not so easy to upgrade the SocketA platform to Socket754 (because of the very large number of installed systems).

But in any case, the SocketA platform has already died, and now when we say Sempron we will mean Socket754 (and in the future also Socket939). When forming the Sempron line, AMD engineers had to pretty rack their brains. The fact is that the frequency ceiling of the 0.13 µm process technology is still limited to 2.2 GHz, and the new 0.09 µm process technology does not provide a serious increase in operating frequencies. Of course, AMD has conquered the 2.8GHz bar - it is at this frequency that Athlon 64 FX-57 processors operate. But for the production of mass and cheap processors, such as Sempron, it is necessary to have an order of magnitude better percentage of good chips per wafer. Therefore, if you look at things realistically, then the frequency potential of the 0.09 μm process technology for the production of Sempron is in the region of 2.4 GHz (although in the future, when changing cores and debugging the process technology, an increase to 2.6 GHz is possible).

Therefore, having a limitation in operating frequencies, AMD engineers had to solve two problems. Firstly, Sempron processors should not be inferior (or better, surpass) Intel Celeron processors in speed, and secondly, Sempron processors should not interfere with sales of AMD Athlon64 processors. If the solution of the first task was not particularly difficult, then with the solution of the second there were certain problems. In my opinion, AMD marketers failed to come up with a way to divide the Socket754 Athlon64 and Socket754 Sempron processors into different market niches. As a result, they simply turned a blind eye to this problem, declaring that the entire Socket754 platform is intended for budget systems.

However, there are still a couple of differences between Athlon64 and Sempron. First, Sempron processors have disabled support for executing 64-bit instructions. But for most users it doesn't matter: the 64-bit Windows system is not yet fully debugged, and the number of optimized applications is small (I think most users are waiting for the release of the fundamentally new OS Windows Vista, which will take place in about a year). The second difference is more significant - the size of the L2 cache in Sempron processors is reduced to 256Kb, and in some models - to 128Kb (this is quite significant compared to 1024512Kb in Athlon64 processors). At the same time, the performance ratings of Sempron processors were calculated with an eye on direct competitors (Intel Celeron). As a result, very funny situations arose more than once, when in stores the Sempron 3100+ (S754) processor cost more than the Athlon64 2800+ (S754), and at the same time it worked slower :).

If we talk about the size of the cache memory, then many users can charge in the eyes of a variety of combinations of clock speed and cache memory. In addition, overclockers have another problem when choosing a processor: for the same models, AMD, at different times, used different cores and steppings with different overclocking potential. It is quite difficult to summarize all the information about Sempron processors in one table: because some processors with the same performance rating had serious differences from each other (very often this applies to processors released for OEM). Therefore, we restrict ourselves to listing the technical characteristics of the latest processors.

When looking at the table, it is not difficult to grasp the logic behind the formation of the performance rating. In particular, an increase in the amount of cache memory from 128Kb to 256Kb, with an equal clock frequency, leads to an increase in the rating by 200 points. And increasing the clock frequency by 200 MHz with the same amount of L2 cache increases the rating by 400 points. True, the 3100+ processor falls out of this clear picture, which differs from the 3000+ model in L2 size (256Kb versus 128Kb). But there is an explanation for this: AMD marketers estimate the processors released at 0.09 µm somewhat "more expensive". This is partly justified by the following. While the change in process technology does not improve performance, processors released at 0.09µm are somewhat faster due to minor core changes. By the way - AMD quite often redesigns the core, and the main changes concern the integrated memory controller. For no matter how good Athlon64 is, there will always be an area in which one or another characteristic of the processor can be improved, modified or corrected.

So, let's consider the processors that will take part in today's testing.

From left to right: Sempron 3100+, 3300+ and 3400+. In addition, one of the slowest and cheapest processors for Socket 754 will participate in our testing. This is Sempron 2600+, operating at a frequency of 1.6GHz and having 128Kb of L2 cache.

The processor is based on the 0.09µm Palermo core stepping DH8-D0.

The next Sempron processor differs from all others in that it is manufactured using a 0.13 micron process technology.

It is based on the DH7-CG stepping Paris core.

If you don't look at the markings, then visually all processors designed for Socket754 are completely identical, both from the front and from the back.

Try to guess what processor it is? Yes, I don't remember :).

Just like the 2600+ model, it is based on the Palermo core and has an L2 cache of the same size. But the main difference between the 3300+ and the 2600+, besides the clock frequency, is the new stepping (DH8-E3) of the core. In addition to the next improvements in the memory controller, this stepping has expanded functionality. In particular, the processor supports the execution of SSE3 instructions.

And finally, the Sempron 3400+ model. This processor runs at a clock frequency of 2.0 GHz, and L2 cache = 256Kb.

It is also based on the Palermo core, but the core stepping is the most recent - E6. Thanks to him, the processor, in addition to executing SSE3 instructions, is able to execute 64-bit instructions (ie x86-64).

Thus, AMD is transferring support for AMD64 technology to budget processors. Here it is worth noting that the first budget processors with support for x86-64 were released by Intel (Celeron D model with EM64T technology), and AMD acted as a catch-up party. Besides, the initial price of $150 for the Sempron3400+ model does not allow us to classify it as a budget processor (in my opinion, Athlon64 Socket754 is much more attractive in this respect).

Now let's list specifications Sempron 3400+ processor:

• Processor core - Palermo
• Support for Cool "n" Quiet technology
• AMD64 technology support
• Support for NX-bit technology
• Stepping - E6
• Process technology - 0.09 microns
• Clock frequency 2.0 GHz (multiplier = 10)
• HTT bus frequency = 200MHz
• Core area 84 sq. mm.
• Number of transistors 63.5 million
• L1 cache size: 128 KB
• L2 cache size: 256 KB
• Stock voltage: 1.4V
• Typical heat dissipation: ~62W
• Maximum case temperature: 69C (note - the case, not the core itself)

The processor has a single-channel memory controller (like other Socket754 processors), and supports the following memory standards DDR200, DDR266, DDR333 and DDR400.

It seems most likely that following the 3400+ model, AMD will release junior models of processors based on the Palermo core of the E6 stepping. Thus, even the owners of the most low-end systems will be able to get x86-64 support.

In order for the user to be able to distinguish a processor with x86-64 support when buying a processor, you need to know the marking features. In particular, processors on the E6 stepping have the letters BX at the end of the marking. And, for example, processors based on the Palermo core of the E3 stepping have the last marking letters - B0.