- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (69) |
- Share
All modern processors consist of three main elements that must be carefully balanced: core count, cache capacities, and clock speed. This balance must take into account the manufacturing process, possible voltages, clock rates, thermal and electrical limits, yields, and eventually total cost.
Shrinking the manufacturing technology—for example, from 65nm to 45nm—allows chip makers to optimize one or several of these parameters. Smaller and more efficient transistors can usually operate at higher clock speeds. But it’s also possible to add more cores or larger caches to increase performance. Lastly, manufacturers may leave processor designs largely unchanged and simply bring power consumption down. This approach can also buy chipmakers more time to collect experience on a new process before making modifications.
Since AMD does not have Intel’s vast manufacturing capacities (the company recently spun off its facilities into GlobalFoundries), it has to focus on maximizing output. As a result, the vast majority of AMD’s products at any given time are based on a single processor design that can be modified (usually simplified) to address different price points and market segments, all the while maximizing yield rates. The issue here is simple: one size doesn’t fit it all on the market anymore, but one size has to fit it all in manufacturing.
Intel, by the way, has been doing very much the same thing. All 45nm Core 2 processors are technically based on the dual-core Wolfdale design, and the firm utilizes two of them to create the Yorkfield quad-core CPUs (Core 2 Quad, Extreme). Intel only modifies the dies by limiting L2 cache capacities. AMD, however, has been much more aggressive in creating different products out of the 45nm quad-core Deneb design. The company dives deeper into the dies, switching more individual units off (or on) to master the yield challenge. The result is sometimes different dies that all share the same origin. Here’s a quick overview of multiple AMD products all based on the same underlying design:
Deneb, quad-core, 6 MB or 4 MB L3 cache (2.4 to 3.4 GHz)
Heka, triple-core, 6 MB L3 cache (2.4 to 3.0 GHz)
Callisto, dual-core, 6 MB L3 cache (3.0 to 3.1 GHz)
Propus, quad-core, no L3 cache (2.6+ GHz)
Rana, triple-core, no L3 cache (2.7+ GHz)
Regor, dual-core, no L3 cache (2.8 to 3.0 GHz)
Editor's Note: Getting Turned On
- Phenom II X3 720...
Incidentally, AMD has confirmed that early Athlon II X4s are being sold on Propus and Deneb core designs, the former without any L3 cache by design and the latter with 6MB of L3 disabled.
We dusted off our faithful ASRock M3A790GXH/128M motherboard, which we've used in the past to unlock Phenom II X3s and X4s, and then unlock Phenom II X2s. Unfortunately, while we've seen the screenshots of Athlon II X4s with 6MB L3 cache, our 620 ran with ACC enabled, but didn't unlock the L3 cache, while our 630 simply wouldn't boot.
As before, don't buy one of these less-expensive chips counting on an easy upgrade with the right SB750-equipped motherboard. Though a handful of processors might surprise you, chances are good that you won't get the equivalent of a Phenom II X4 out of one of these new Athlon IIs.
- Athlon II X4 620 Propus (Deneb?) 2.6GHz on Sale [CPU & Components]
- Trouble Overclocking Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz [Overclocking]
- AMD Phenom II X2 545 Callisto or Athlon II X4 620 Propus [CPU & Components]
- Good motherboard for AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus [CPU & Components]
- 100 quad core [CPU & Components]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 4
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
PC Breakdown
What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
|
violent :
More Mindless Violence
Basic shooting game, but still so powerful! Use the mouse to take aim and shoot at the little beasties before they get to you. Use Space to reload....
|
Where is overclocking test?
Where is overclocking test?
I had to head over to anandtech for that
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=3638&p=9
Wow.. talk about a mixed bag. Though its a great marketing ploy if nothing else. $50 and Vt over the Q8200 is something.
The overclocking (on the particular board reviewed on, Anand used a 790 board) would be interesting. Too bad Tom's got lazy. I know I've had good luck with budget G31 boards.
I get the budget tri core, as some games are starting to use dual threads and the core in the back for the OS and garbage. Not sure what the price point will be as the 710 is in that range also. But the quad escapes me. The A/V editing crowd are the ones that benefit most from a quad, but the lack of speed and large cache really hold back the fact that there are 4 cores. Better to get speed and get a Phenom II x2 in the same price range.
This great news for anybody lookin to buy into a quad core, tho I want to see AMD come out with something big awesome, not a budget cpu.
Just curious, but do you guys use the scanline renderer or mental ray for 3DS Max?
Westemere Verse Fusion, Who will win? Much more interesting to many at Toms hardware over, whats the best sub $100 processor? Actually nevermind it is good info, I know how to build a sub $200 rendering comp to be included in a massive rendering farm.
quote : "All modern processors consist of three main elements that must be carefully balanced: core count, cache capacities, and clock speed".
sure , but what happened to micro-architecture and the resulting instructions/clock ? Intel has a clear advantage in their arch , whether core 2 or, now, i5 for the masses .
but , of course , they have a proposition at 100 dollars for 4 cores , that's nice .
Not worth it. For an extra $100, I can get an i7 which provides a 10fold increase in computational power density.
Q9550 $214 @3.8-4.0Ghz eats all current AMD Phenom II processors for lunch. Forget about i5 or i7.
I was just thinking that my q6600 at 3.2 is higher than the chart and 22months old...
Just curious, but do you guys use the scanline renderer or mental ray for 3DS Max?
I second that, plus can you link us to the *.max file (if possible) cause I for one would like to benchmark my system with it to see how it stands.
... this part is in Latvia already @ a nice pricepoint... a cheap upgrade from x2 to x4 for multitask and windows 7 users...
Not worth it. For an extra $100, I can get an i7 which provides a 10fold increase in computational power density.
Dude you're saying as if we all have more than $200 for a CPU upgrade. What I mean by more than $200 is -> ~$200 for i7, ~$150 more for new socket mobo, and if integrated GPU was previously used, ~$60+ more for new GPU.
Well, OK, new GPU aside, you still need at LEAST a freaking $350 just to go for quad-core i7.
It's common sense that $100 upgrade is cheaper than $350 ones. Not to mention the waste of buying current mobo...
"Should you consider keeping your mature Athlon 64 X2 system a while longer—let’s say until SATA/600 and USB 3.0 become mainstream in mid-2010"
For the user looking for a cheap alternative it's looking good.
Budget quad core, yay!
Would be great for a secondary computer.
Give it my 4870, and put a 5870 in my new rig. ^_^
...
Quad core for $100, 4870 for $100, 4GB RAM for $40, board for $50, PSU for $25 (I would be cheap here, being a dirt cheap system. No way in hell I'd use a crappy PSU on my i7 though). Use an old mouse/keyboard/monitor/case/HDD/DVDD, and I have everything I need.
My i7 system: total cost (including shipping/taxes etc.) = $1,700
i7 920, bloodrage mobo, 1GB 4870, 6GB DDR3, CM V8 HSF, Antec 300, 3x Scythe fans, 22x DVD drive, 1TB HDD, 2 UV cathodes, g5 mouse, game controller, 23" monitor...
Athlon x4: approximately ~ $350.
For the same price of the i7 920 cpu alone (assuming you're paying full price, because us Canadians don't have a Frys or Microcenter) I could jerry rig a cheap AMD quad core... awesome.
Great article.... I didn't think that Athlon II X4 will do this well in the benchmarks and efficiency. I have a Dragon Platform (Phenom II X4 940, MSI DKA790GX Platinum, XFX Radeon 4850), after this article I am planning to make an R&D system based on Athlon II X4. Thanks Tom's Hardware for this nice article. :-)
Hmm... Athlon II X4 is still a bit pricey for me.
Better wait until its Sempron incarnation.
nice to see that my amd phenom 9550 still delivers great performance. i like it (put it that way) at comparison to the newer cpu's.