A Look At AMDs Socket AM2 Platform

Although the DDR2-powered Athlon 64 platform is now up and running, AMD will not release it until June 6th. While this is mainly a business decision, it also has the benefit of leaving some time for performance optimizations.
185 answers Last reply
More about amds socket platform
  1. I don't believe those results for 1 second. No company will release a product that performs below it's current tech. I wish Tom's would have used faster RAM (3-3-3-12 is easily obtainable over 4-4-4-12) and used the fastest RAM available (DDR2 800 is easy to find at 4-4-4-15 timings) but I guess that'd be too much in favor of AMD. Tom's says that their CPU's don't support DDR2 800, but in 2 pages it says the motherboard supports it, usually that means it can since the motherboard and CPU are both tests samples, the motherboard would have been developed around the samples and thus, can use DDR2 800 w/ the CPU.

    ~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
  2. im actually impressed - performance is about the same, yet the thermal specs are really impresive (35w for the x2 3800+ etc) - i wasnt expecting a performance boost so much.

    When conroe comes out it might still be hotter but if its "20% faster" as they claim it will be valid for the heat, compared to the prescotts which now took like a total joke - a 3800+ X2 - 35w is not even 1/3 the heat of a prescott or smithfield and the prescott doesnt even have an IMC (comparing 90nm chips).
  3. Kind of sad, really, that even with DDR2/667. performance is less than simple DDR PC3200 speeds...

    All in all, with DDR2/800, perhaps it will equal socket 939/PC3200 on a clock for clock basis...
  4. What I found to be ridiculous is their SiSoftware Sandra Memory bandwidth results, they put DDR2 667 at 5.8GB/s, but their past Benchmarks put DDR2 667 in an Intel platform at 6.6GB/s, hmm... 800MB/s loss, that aint due to different RAM, unless this RAM was special RAM...

    ~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
  5. *HUGZ his 2 GIG's of LL DDR1*
  6. What's up with the cpu-z shot showin memory frequency to be 100mhz?
  7. This is a great step- any new advance/tech that they can swing out is another step foreward- We all love fast timings, but ddr 400 is just OLD. Nevermind if you think toms used slow mem or fiddled the stats- point is that its out- do you remember the jump from northwood to prescott? what a fiasco- when you make a huge jump in tech just make the jump- the improvements will come!
  8. Just not in the first gen :wink:
  9. Glad they're waiting till DDR2-800...anyway the speed is to be expected. Nice to know the platform will support 2GB memory modules...I'll say right now that nobody will be happy getting a 2GB stick unless it's registered, ECC, or at least Corsair quality. That size is going to have one heck of a bunch of memory errors otherwise...
  10. Quote:
    I don't believe those results for 1 second. No company will release a product that performs below it's current tech. I wish Tom's would have used faster RAM (3-3-3-12 is easily obtainable over 4-4-4-12) and used the fastest RAM available (DDR2 800 is easy to find at 4-4-4-15 timings) but I guess that'd be too much in favor of AMD. Tom's says that their CPU's don't support DDR2 800, but in 2 pages it says the motherboard supports it, usually that means it can since the motherboard and CPU are both tests samples, the motherboard would have been developed around the samples and thus, can use DDR2 800 w/ the CPU.

    ~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
    mike you gotta remember that ddr2 has higher cas latency and that amd procs love low cas ram mine does :D the poblem could be that the ram is at fualt for the low bencheis i can wait for ddr2 cas 2 or 2.5 ram then ill jump on the m2 bandwagon
  11. The benchmarks look good considering the motherboard is still in beta, and are using DDR 667. I like the power envelope getting lower and lower. 35-65 watts for a high end X2 processor is great news.
  12. Yup, i knew that DDR2 with high latancies will actually decrease performance in most things. The DDR2 800 should at least match the AM2 socket with the 939 if not produce a performance increase of 3-4 %. Though i dunno the latencies for that kind of memory. If they end up high it will be wasted money. The price is another concern. Not all people are willing to pay +2xx$ on 1 Gb of memory.
    AM2 may not be a step forward in performance but it is leap AMD were forced to take in order to ensure the chip evolution. Socket F will decide if AMD was right or wrong. Untill then,i say that Conroe will kick AMD-ish arse. :P
  13. Feel a little disappoint :( But still hopes AMD will bring us more,not only the power consumption.
  14. socket 754? The cpu z is gone mad... :D
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/21/a_look_at_amds_socket_am2_platform/page6.html


    And, just remember the initial problems with ddr 400 who arrived with CAS3.0+.....In this days is only 2.0...that will probably be the same thing with ddr2, it will arrive at a lower latency very soon...
  15. I'd just like to chime in with my 2cents about the AM2 release. From what I can see its not meant to be a upgrade in the performance sense (even with DDR2 800). It seems to be a DIRECT shot across Intel's bow. releasing 35W single core and 68W(doh forgot actual wattage lol) dual core on 90nm before Intel can even get 65nm Conroe's out the door is damned impressive. The FX line is of course still mad hot, but its also mad performance.

    I for one see this as an excellent move by AMD, they are integrating several key changes into 1 giant package to make our lives easier. They are changin over to DDR2 (was inevitable), New socket design (just to noob proof the switch), severely lower wattage on the same 90nm production scheme, virtualization tech (honestly dont know what it does, but sounds cool :P). Even if they have to take DDR2 800 at high latency, if it can maintain performance with DDR400 then its a viable solution.

    I personaly won't upgrade to AM2 until Vista and AMD's 65nm procs come out. This socket release seems more as a stepping stone to vista and 65nm procs and to head off intel before they can claim they have the best performance/watt ratio out there.

    Can't wait for AMD 65nm to see what they are capable of if they can pull this off on 90nm ^^
  16. Well, guess that 10% inproovment.....is coming. No reason to upgrade yet(or downgrade?) Looked like nice DDR2 to me, just isn't like my OZC VX DDR500 2-2-2-5. 65nm is needed, fast. AMD/IBM say they will have 40% better for eather power consumtion or speed at 65nm.

    Review quotes:
    Whether the current engineering sample processors actually suffer from a memory controller bug is hard to say. This could also be due to information that was released intentionally to prevent people from doing early benchmarking.

    We do not want to speculate over the existence of a bug in current silicon as reported on the web, since the processor we used is too far away from mass-production anyway.

    The processor we used for our tests was an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ for Socket AM2, which made its way to motherboard companies in mid-December 2005.

    As already mentioned, the memory is suspected to suffer from a performance bug, which may be true or simple a matter of the early product stage


    What it the point of benching this known bad chip? It may be the first, but it's still incorrect and misleading.
  17. Re-read the review. They actually tried to use 3-2-2-8 DDR2 667, but the mobo would only accept 4-4-4-12 timings. How is that their fault? They use what was given to them. That kind of this is out of their control.

    And hello, they clearly stated the CPU they were given to test DID NOT support DDR2-800. No matter how hard you try, you can't just make an integrated memory controller that was made to operate w/ DDR2-667 work at DDR2-800.

    Your ignorance surprises me. I thought for sure you would picked up on these things. But I guess not...

    -mpjesse
  18. What has been known for a long time, has now come to reality: There are no performance benefits...
  19. Quote:
    because the integrated memory controller suffers more from relaxed memory timings than it can gain from speeding up clock speed via DDR2.

    Quote:
    Since the production process is not going to be changed,...This is why AMD decided to wait for DDR2-800 and launch in June.


    This is funny to see how AMD is sitting around praying for DDR2 800 to come and save them. I couldn't beleive the whole AM2 thing was to switch from DDR to DDR2. Disappointing.


    ,,
  20. Better RAM usually makes a small difference
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/18/pushing_your_ddr2_ram_to_the_max/page10.html
    You cannot expect too much from memory. It certainly won't give more than a 10 % boost in apps.
    Also,now AMD is dependent on memory. But better memory will be good for Intel too(don't tell me Conroe mobos won't support DDR2!?)
  21. ok, a few things,
    1.)if the new socket is pin compatable with 940/939 but slightly different, what is stoping a 3rd party from making an upgrade path to AM2

    2.)i will not be interested in AM2 until the market matures, this will be fall or christmass. For a mature market, i would expect 65nm chips 2+ cores and support for better memory timings than intel.

    3.)AMD integrated memory controller is going to be a huge advantage on AM2, with 939/940 Intel had already gone to ddr2 and so the integrated memory controller was able to give DDR1-400 the speed of DDR2-667. With AMD now moving directly to DDR2-800 I would expect 20-33% better memory performance on an AMD solution, these improvements will be driverless, chipsetless, and virtually invisible to the user as they are able to release new steppings of the AM2 chips. You will be able to upgrade from 4-4-4-12 to 2-2-2-5 with only a new cpu. My guess is most will upgrade from a AM2 x2 core to a AM2 x4 core in another year or so.

    4.) still not a fan of Vista, I dont like the DRM, but since Microsoft has sugested that users should go ECC, I am wondering if AM2 chips will support memory with or without ECC, or will you have to pair an ECC AM2 chip with ECC memory?
  22. I've always been under the impression that timing is key to making AMD's purr. A recent article on xbit labs, (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/2gb-roundup.html)citing OCZ platinum ram was superior to the equivolent Corsair ram by virtue of the chip revision being able to attain higher Mhz and higher voltage over the ultra low timing of the Corsair.
    Call me crazy but doesn't AMD's move to DDR2 back these findings?
  23. Anybody , who had alook at the picture on page 6 ?
    How about the author, for example.... ?

    Why ? Well because CPU-Z said, that the memory frequency is 100.5 MHz. In other words, the system ran at DDR2-400 speeds.

    Hence the "bad" Sandra scores, I "really" wonder why these are actually in the DDR2-400 range :roll: , hence the whole conclusion is for the sewer...

    Sorry, but from a decent articel, I demand, that the author is watching his own screenshots.

    Yes CPU-Z is displaying a lot of nonsense, but the RAM devider is read directly from the chipset, no speculative guessing needed, like for the CPU name.

    So please check the DRAM frequency. Dont rely on the BIOS post messages, these can be wrong, especially on beta, engineering boards...

    byebye

    FalseInformation
  24. Mad Mod Mike, what your forgetting about is the future design of the other chips, look at the 3.06 from Intel, wasn't the 3.0 slower Ghz-wise than it? The main fact was the change over to the 800fsb. Same here with AMD, they know the future of ram is DDR2 so they're taking the steps to ensure that they can continue with the pace of technology. BESIDES they are going to have slower processors realeased just to be able to keep people who want the new M2 socket within their budget. INTEL DID IT WITH THE P4 NUMEROUS TIMES, LOOK AT THE 2.4A, B, AND C. ITS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD THE CHANGE OVER. Its all apart of the strat. of buisness. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest, but they understand the fundemental change, so they buy a slower processor and upgrade later on when it matures or when they can afford better.
  25. What the hell do you think the switch from Socket 478 to LGA775 was?

    Besides PCI-E, it was a change from DDR to DDR2.

    Your post makes no sense.

    Quote:
    This is funny to see how AMD is sitting around praying for DDR2 800 to come and save them.


    Save them from what? Have you missed all the positive financial analysis' of AMD's future? Did ya miss the part where AMD continues to gain market share? Did ya miss the part where they're continuing to make more and more money every quarter?

    Intel fanboy, get lost.

    -mpjesse
  26. EDITED
  27. Quote:

    Why ? Well because CPU-Z said, that the memory frequency is 100.5 MHz. In other words, the system ran at DDR2-400 speeds.


    That would be DDR2-200.

    The benchmarks clearly don't reflect that level of performance. CPU-Z is wrong.
  28. Quote:
    I wonder what happened? CPUID should have reported a clock speed of 333mhz. Not 100.5Mhz. Strange indeed.

    The DCT used to be derived from the core clock using an integer divider. Clearly, that had to change in order to get to 333 MHz. Bottom line: CPU-Z probably isn't reporting the correct numbers.
  29. It also says DDR, not DDR2? :?:
  30. "Whether the current engineering sample processors actually suffer from a memory controller bug is hard to say. This could also be due to information that was released intentionally to prevent people from doing early benchmarking."

    The cpu-z is indicating a PC-3200 DDR2 at 4-4-4-12 and the Sandra memory bandwitch tests confirms it. That and the quote indicating a bug in the memory controller also reported here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29776 , makes me to belive that the only conclusion that can be drawn from this review is that the AM2 Athlons with a broken memory controller and a higher latency DDR2 3200 on a beta mobo is as good as an fully functional S939 A64 running on a tested motherboard with DDR1 3200 2-2-2-5.
    Now that is one hell of an achievement.
  31. Quote:
    What the hell do you think the switch from Socket 478 to LGA775 was?

    Besides PCI-E, it was a change from DDR to DDR2.

    Your post makes no sense.

    This is funny to see how AMD is sitting around praying for DDR2 800 to come and save them.


    Save them from what? Have you missed all the positive financial analysis' of AMD's future? Did ya miss the part where AMD continues to gain market share? Did ya miss the part where they're continuing to make more and more money every quarter?

    Intel fanboy, get lost.

    -mpjesse
    Financial analysis is not the same as product analysis and to get it straight: Analysts rarely do have any idea of the products at all. Intel also keeps making more and more money and they do it some sizes bigger than AMD.
    Besides that, your comments has like nothing to do with what he said...

    Anything else to say?
  32. Yeah ur right, my bad. It would be 200mhz if it were DDR2-400. And there would have been a major disparity between the benchmarks had the system been really running at DDR2-200 speeds.

    I go delete my earlier post now... hehehe.

    -mpjesse
  33. I don't think that anybody has mentioned here that the test sample supossedly suffers from a memory bug that is causing poor performance, and that is supposed to be rectified in an upcoming revision before release? That could explain the strange memory timings.

    It seems a lot of people on here, ESPECIALLY Intel fanboys are treating this as the end all comparison, while the article itself states this is not meant to be an accurate benchmark of the final performance, just a sneak preview. Regardless of other factors, AMD is VERY unlikely to release a new socket with lower performace than the current gen. I can gaurantee that things will change before the official launch. Thats just the way things work.
  34. No it's DDR2-400, refresh your DDR2 knowledge here:

    http://www.lostcircuits.com/memory/ddrii/2.shtml
    Quote:
    To sum this up, DDR II 400 will feature a 100 MHz (10 ns clock cycle; tCK) core...


    To the CPU-Z discussion:

    There is data which is only read by the program and put on screen, and data that is processed.
    Processed data is most of the strange stuff, like the weird CPU Name and the DDR assumption. However the revision, stepping code, voltage, etc. is correct, so is (I guess ) also the RAM divider.
    The speed is just too similar to DDR1-400.
    Someone should try to overclock the HT frequency to 333 Mhz, to achieve some DDR2-667 timing ...
    But I guess there is no possibiliy on a engineering board, to do that.

    Anyways, dont worry about the speed, until you saw a really, working system ;-)

    byebye

    FalseInformation
  35. also in chase this post is going to be deleted, because it´s not pro intel or pro tomshardware:

    thanks to rkinet for his ideas:

    Sandra 2005 pro: DDR-II 667 // Memory Bandwith < 6000 MByte/s ?
    using DDR-I 400 socket 939 makes approx. 6 GByte from theoretical 6,4 Gbyte/s = -0,5 GByte/s, so why does DDR-II 667 make only less than 6 GByte/s at theoretic 10 GByte/s = -4 GByte/s ?

    this is equal to DDR2/400!!!

    take a look at the DRAM Frequency on page 6: 100Mhz to the RAM?!?!?!?

    what do you say??
  36. LOL. Nice selective quoting.

    I hope you have the decency to quote the rest of the sentence from LostCircuits in your next post.

    To set the record straight: DDR2-400 (PC2-3200) operates at 200 MHz.
  37. sorry, but it took some time to get everything straight in english, as it isn´t my mother tongue
  38. My question:

    No mention of the HTT increase from default 200 to 333.
  39. By him stating "funny how AMD is sitting around praying for DDR2-800" he is implying that there is impending financial doom for AMD. It's quite the opposite actually.

    So explain to me how my comments had nothing to do with his statement?

    1. I addressed his insipid statement that the switch to AM2 is somehow stupid because it's a change in memory technologies.

    2. I addressed his comment about DDR2-800 "saving" AMD. So what does AMD need saving from? Hmmm?

    3. Quite the contrary, I'd argue that most financial analysts (esp. in semiconductor) do know the products. Most financial analysts are really research experts. They spend hours studying products, supply, demand, etc. What evidence to you have to support your claim that analysts "rarely have any idea of the products at all?"

    You too need to go away. Ur nothing but a troll around here anyways.
  40. It surprises me that so few in this thread actually stop and use their brains for a few quick seconds. Do you really honestly believe that AMD can only squeeze sub-6GB/s bandwidth out of DDR2-667, while Intel can get more than 6GB/s out of DDR2-533?

    There's obviously something that isn't working as it should here. Sandra is not very sensitive to timings, so bandwidth reported by Sandras bench should be fairly close to the theoretical max. Still, in Tom's test we see results 45% below theoretical max. Come on people! You have to be blind to not notice that something's wrong here.

    Quote:
    To set the record straight: DDR2-400 (PC2-3200) operates at 200 MHz.

    Well, not the memory chips. The read/write buffers work at twice the memory chip frequency and also work in DDR. Regular DDR sticks have buffers working at the same speed as the memory chips.
  41. I think it's a pretty good showing for a pre-production system running on slower memory than it will be able support upon release.

    An the release of a new platform that's slower than the old is not unprecedented or unheard of. Remember the initial release of the P4? Although it clocked in at 1.5 ghz initially (the highest processor clockspeed at that time), it was stomped in performance by the higher IPC athlon running at 1.2 ghz and even edged out by it's little brother, the P3. However as intel ramped up the clock speed the P4 became the fastest processor on the market, until AMD's hammer architecture that is.

    I don't think that will be the case here though. When M2 is released I am confident that performance will be on par or slightly better than equivalent s939 parts. Remember this isn't a major architectural change and noone should expect it to perform like one.
  42. Quote:

    Financial analysis is not the same as product analysis and to get it straight: Analysts rarely do have any idea of the products at all. Intel also keeps making more and more money and they do it some sizes bigger than AMD.
    Besides that, your comments has like nothing to do with what he said...

    Anything else to say?


    I got something to say... We all know you are an idiot.
  43. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2

    Wikipedia says quite the contrary...

    Quote:
    DDR2-400: DDR-SDRAM memory chips specified to run at 100 MHz, I/O clock at 200 MHz


    Hardly a definitive source... but still.

    -mpjesse
  44. Quote:
    ok, a few things,
    1.)if the new socket is pin compatable with 940/939 but slightly different, what is stoping a 3rd party from making an upgrade path to AM2


    For a second I almost thought this wasn't a half-bad idea. Seeing how they use the same chipsets, it's essentially the same processor but with a different memory controller and pin layout. So, if you created an AM2 to 939 device, that can override the AM2 CPU's memory controller with it's own DDR(1) controller, it could theoretically work. Now, the reason why it's impractical. If you take an AM2 CPU and use such a device, you essentially have the same exact thing as that CPU made for 939. The cost of the AM2 CPU + conversion device would be greater than the 939. Even if you considered it viable for an FX-62 or 5000+ X2, the people buying those can afford a new motherboard.
  45. Quote:

    Financial analysis is not the same as product analysis and to get it straight: Analysts rarely do have any idea of the products at all. Intel also keeps making more and more money and they do it some sizes bigger than AMD.
    Besides that, your comments has like nothing to do with what he said...

    Anything else to say?


    I got something to say... We all know you are an idiot. thank you hergie i was thinking that just now but since you said i voted for your post thx man for saying what i was thinking :D
  46. someone smack the author

    he says the curent 4800+ is a manchester with 512K cashe?

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/21/a_look_at_amds_socket_am2_platform/page8.html
  47. First off, jesse, go jump off a cliff because you're a useless fat moron.
    Secondly, the fact that the controller doesn't support DDR2-800 and that the CAS is high, proves my original point you fat oaf, that these benches are not credible, go pound down a cheeseburger and shut up fatty.

    Brunis: I noted on the memory too, I can relax the timings on my DDR1 to that of the DDR2 (excluding the CAS of 4) and I can still squeeze 7GB/s out of 3-4-4-10 @ 240MHz, so there is no way that those at DDR2667 and same timings are getting less then 6GBs, and dont tell me "that extra cas is a big hit" because that's the newb saying of the year. This further proves the credibility of those benches is not correct.

    ~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
  48. Quote:
    What the hell do you think the switch from Socket 478 to LGA775 was?

    Besides PCI-E, it was a change from DDR to DDR2.


    This is not true if you say the only change from s478 to s775 is the support for DDR2. Intel continuously worked on 64-bit support, hyperthreading, increasing the FSB and operating frequency, engaging the 65 nm and lowering the temperature. As a result there won’t be a socket change for Intel next generation and probably they are even compatible with today’s 975x. Well if AMD wasn’t too greedy to give up some of the performance and market share and had done the socket change earlier they would have been in a better situation now. Now AMD is saying wait until the end of summer and I give you the same chip that you working with today. Who care if they take DDR or DDR2 if the performance difference is not significant?
    Quote:
    Intel fanboy, get lost.


    ??? com'on kid, this is not your Intel fanboy thread.

    Quote:
    Save them from what? I addressed his comment about DDR2-800 "saving" AMD. So what does AMD need saving from? Hmmm?


    Obviously from the competition, if Intel next generation improves by 20% in performance as they promised and AMD sticks to the current results as they have shown, it is not difficult to foresee the future.

    ,,
  49. Quote:

    Obviously from the competition, if Intel next generation improves by 20% in performance as they promised and AMD sticks to the current results as they have shown, it is not difficult to foresee the future.

    ,,


    So why is it completely believeable when Intel says an unreleased chip will be 20% better than an as yet unreleased competitor, but you take the word of an (admittedly) flawed benchmark about AMD products as absolute truth?

    Where do you get that AMD is sticking to the current results? This article clearly states that these are NOT the results we are likely to see at the June launch, or even with Revision F next month.

    Please try try to be a little objective when picking your "facts".
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs DDR2 Socket Product