Motherboards for amd athlon 64 x2. Choosing a motherboard

Now AMD's developments are appreciated, and as a result, more and more consumers, including corporate ones, are paying attention to the products of this company.

The 64-bit Athlon 64 processors, which appeared in 2003, are a well-deserved success and it was they that allowed AMD to get rid of the image of a manufacturer of cheap clones of x86 processors. Now the developments of AMD engineers are appreciated, as a result, more and more consumers, including corporate ones, are paying attention to the products of this company.

The “golden” period of the Athlon 64 family can be called the end of 2003 - beginning of 2005: then AMD’s main rival, Intel, did not have analogues of these processors. With the advent of support for 64-bit extensions in the latest generation of Pentium 4, loyal Intel consumers who were considering the theoretical possibility of purchasing an Athlon 64 processor will, of course, choose a chip from Intel. The main rivalry is now between the dual-core Intel Pentium D and AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, and many experts believe that the AMD chip has a more advantageous design than the Intel chip.

Processors

The Athlon 64 processors were the world's first chips capable of running both 64-bit and today's widely used 32-bit applications without compromising performance. In addition, the Athlon 64 features proprietary Cool"n"Quiet technology, which dynamically reduces the processor clock speed depending on the actual load, as well as Enhanced Virus Protection antivirus technology.

Athlon 64 processors are currently available with five different cores: SledgeHammer, NewCastle, Winchester, Venice And San Diego. There are also models on sale based on the ClawHammer core, but they are considered obsolete. Models based on the NewCastle core are available in two varieties: for the old Socket 754 connector and for the modern Socket 939. The main difference is the memory controller built into the chip: modifications for Socket 754 are equipped with a single-channel DDR memory controller, and modifications for Socket 939 are equipped with a dual-channel controller. Other models, with the exception of SledgeHammer, are produced only for Socket 939.

The FX series chips and the Athlon 64 4000+ (model ADA4000DEP5AS) use the core SledgeHammer, similar in architecture to the outdated ClawHammer. These processors, consisting of 105.9 million transistors, are equipped with a dual-channel memory controller, support a 1 GHz Hyper-Transport bus, and operate at clock speeds from 2.2 to 2.6 GHz. The volume of the second level cache is 1 MB. Processors are produced using 0.13-micron technology. The FX-51 model and one of the FX-53 modifications (ADAFX53CEP5AT) are designed for the Socket 940 connector, and the remaining chips are designed for the Socket 939 connector.

Core-based Athlon 64 processors NewCastle consist of 68.5 million transistors and are also manufactured using 0.13-micron technology. The chips operate at clock frequencies from 2.2 to 2.4 GHz (models 3500+ and 3800+) and are equipped with 512 KB L2 cache and a dual-channel controller random access memory. The Hyper-Transport bus frequency is 1 GHz. NewCastle modifications for the slot with a single-channel memory controller support an 800 MHz system bus.

Models on the core Winchester, like NewCastle chips, consist of 68.5 million transistors, but are produced using 0.09-micron technology. These processors have a 512 KB L2 cache, a dual-channel DDR memory controller and support a Hyper-Transport bus operating at 1 GHz. The Athlon 64 3000+, 3200+ and 3000+ models on the Winchester core operate at clock speeds from 1.8 to 2.2 GHz.

Athlon 64 chips on the core Venice also consist of 68.5 million, but their production uses a new Dual Stress Liner (DSL) technological process, developed in collaboration with IBM. The main point of this “stretched” silicon technology is to increase the response speed of transistors by almost a quarter, while, unlike Intel’s “stretched” silicon technology, the usual and inexpensive silicon nitride can be used in production.

Models on the core Venice equipped with 512 KB of L2 cache, a dual-channel memory controller and work with a 1 GHz system bus. The clock speeds of 3000+, 3200+, 3500+ and 3800+ processors with this core range from 1.8 to 2.4 GHz. Venice was the first Athlon 64 to support the SSE3 instruction set. In addition, problems with the compatibility of the built-in controller with various RAM modules have been eliminated.

Finally, the most modern core for single-core Athlon 64 today is San Diego. Only 4000+ processors have been officially released for sale so far. clock frequency 2.4 GHz and a 1 MB L2 cache. However, according to some reports, in Japanese stores there are also 3500+ models with the L2 cache halved. The processors support the 1 GHz Hyper-Transport bus and the SSE3 instruction set.

System logic sets

Boards for Athlon 64 processors are produced based on several sets of system logic. First of all, these are single-chip nVidia chipsets of the nForce 3 and nForce 4 families, which are considered almost a de facto standard for these processors. About the series nForce 3 we won’t talk, since these obsolete chipsets are used today only in inexpensive motherboards and do not support the interface PCI Express x16 for installing latest generation video cards.

Family nForce 4 consists of three modifications that combine support for the promising PCI Express interface - up to three PCI Express x1 devices and one video card with a PCI Express x16 interface or two with a PCI Express x8 interface.

The basic modification is designed for the Hyper-Transport 800 MHz system bus and is equipped with a Serial ATA controller (150) with RAID support, 10 USB ports 2.0, gigabit network adapter and an 8.1-channel sound controller. The Ultra version is distinguished by a Serial ATA II (300) controller and support system bus 1 GHz, and the modification with the SLI index is additionally capable of working with one PCI Express x16 video card or two PCI Express x8 cards, united by a proprietary SLi “bridge”. Only cards based on nVidia GeForce 6600 and 6800 series graphics accelerators can operate in SLI mode. Unfortunately, nForce 4 series chipsets are not equipped with an IEEE 1394 (FireWire) controller, which has already become common in modern computers, however, most motherboard manufacturers solve this problem themselves by installing third-party chips. The younger modification nForce 4 is designed only for Athlon 64 processors, and the two older ones are designed for both Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX chips.

The second level in popularity is occupied by chipsets from the Taiwanese company VIA Technologies. The well-deserved chipset is still in demand K8T800, designed for an 800 MHz bus and supporting AGP 8x video cards. The kit includes a VT8237 south bridge equipped with ATA133 and Serial ATA controllers, a 100-Mbit network adapter and a 5.1-channel audio controller. Up to six PCI slots and up to eight USB 2.0 ports are supported. Modification K8M800 differs only in the built-in graphics controller, and the model K8T800 Pro - support for Hyper-Transport 1 GHz. A slightly more modern set K8T890 differs from the K8T800 Pro only in the built-in PCI Express x16 controller instead of AGP 8x.

VIA chipsets are traditionally somewhat cheaper than nVidia solutions, but they are not too much inferior to them in terms of performance. As a rule, inexpensive ones are assembled on the K8T800 gaming computers for the home, while nForce 4 chipsets are used for powerful gaming PCs and even workstations.

System logic for Athlon 64 processors is produced by three other companies - ATI Technologies, SiS and ULi, but these chipsets are much less popular and, with the exception of ATI solutions, seriously lag behind the leaders in performance.

The Canadian company ATI produces two models of chipsets for the Athlon 64 - Xpress 200 And 200P. Both chipsets support both Athlon 64 processors and Athlon 64 FX chips. Modification 200 features a built-in entry-level Radeon X300 graphics controller, which, however, operates at a slightly lower frequency than its discrete (“card”) version. The remaining characteristics of the chipsets are the same: support for the Hyper-Transport 1 GHz system bus, a PCI Express x16 interface for installing a video card, support for four PCI Express x1 slots. The south bridge uses a ULi M1573 chip with built-in ATA133 and Serial ATA (150) controllers, support for up to 8 USB 2.0 ports, up to 7 PCI slots, a 5.1-channel audio controller and a 100-megabit network controller.

Taiwanese company produces chipsets 755 And 760GX, designed for Athlon 64 processors, and models 755FX And 756 - for Athlon 64 FX chips. Models for "regular" Athlon 64 support an 800 MHz bus, and for FX - a 1 GHz bus. Communication with the south bridge is carried out through the proprietary MuTIOL bus with a throughput of 1066 MB/s. All chipsets, with the exception of the 756, are equipped with an AGP 8x video interface, and the 756 is equipped with the latest PCI Express x16. The 760GX model has a built-in Mirage 2 graphics accelerator. The 756 comes with a SiS 965 southbridge with a gigabit network controller, a PCI Express x1 controller for two slots, a 7.1-channel audio controller and a USB 2.0 adapter with support for 8 ports. The remaining modifications are equipped with a SiS 964 south bridge with a 100-megabit network controller, a 5.1-channel sound processor, as well as a USB 2.0 controller with support for 6 ports and an IEEE 1394 (FireWire) controller. Both south bridges have built-in Serial ATA (150) and ATA133 controllers.

ULi also produces M 1687/1689 + M 1563 chipsets, which belong to the lower price category and are designed for Athlon 64 processors with an 800 MHz bus and video cards with an AGP 8x interface. Motherboards based on ULi chipsets are rarely found on sale, since they are practically not in demand.

When choosing a motherboard, you should pay attention, in addition to the design, equipment of the board and its configuration, to the manufacturer. By purchasing products from first-tier companies, which currently include Asus, Elitegroup Computer Systems (ECS), Gigabyte and MSI, you receive an almost 100% guarantee that the board will work and that there will be no annoying defects. Products from companies such as ABIT, Albatron, AOpen, EPoX and Soltek have also proven themselves well. Unfortunately, no one is immune from manufacturing defects, so it is best to purchase system board in a reliable company, guaranteeing the exchange of low-quality products.

On the next page you can see some motherboards for Athlon 64 processors.

Introduction

Let's get started with dual-core processors for desktop computers. In this review you will find everything about the dual-core processor from AMD: general information, performance testing, overclocking, and information about power consumption and heat dissipation.

The time for dual-core processors has come. In the very near future, processors equipped with two computing cores will begin to actively penetrate desktop computers. By the end of next year, most new PCs should be based on dual-core CPUs.
Such a strong zeal of manufacturers to introduce dual-core architectures is explained by the fact that other methods for increasing productivity have already exhausted themselves. Increasing clock frequencies is very difficult, and increasing the bus speed and cache size does not lead to tangible results.
At the same time, the improvement of the 90 nm process has reached the point where the production of giant crystals with an area of about 200 square meters. mm has become profitable. It was this fact that enabled CPU manufacturers to begin a campaign to introduce dual-core architectures.

So, today, May 9, 2005, following Intel, AMD is also previewing its dual-core processors for desktop systems. However, as in the case of dual-core Smithfield processors (Intel Pentium D and Intel Extreme Edition), we are not talking about the start of deliveries yet; they will begin a little later. IN this moment AMD is only giving us a preview of its upcoming offerings.
The line of dual-core processors from AMD is called Athlon 64 X2. This name reflects both the fact that the new dual-core CPUs have AMD64 architecture and the fact that they have two processing cores. Along with the name, processors with two cores for desktop systems also received their own logo:

The Athlon 64 X2 family at the time of its appearance on store shelves will include four processors with ratings of 4200+, 4400+, 4600+ and 4800+. These processors will be available for purchase between $500 and $1000 depending on their performance. That is, AMD places its Athlon 64 X2 line slightly higher than the usual Athlon 64.
However, before we begin to judge the consumer qualities of the new CPUs, let's take a closer look at the features of these processors.

Architecture of Athlon 64 X2

It should be noted that the implementation of dual-core in AMD processors is somewhat different from the Intel implementation. Although, like the Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition, the Athlon 64 X2 is essentially two Athlon 64 processors combined on a single chip, AMD's dual-core processor offers a slightly different way of communicating between the cores.
The fact is that Intel's approach is to simply place two Prescott cores on one chip. With this dual-core organization, the processor does not have any special mechanisms for interaction between cores. That is, as in conventional dual-processor Xeon-based systems, the cores in Smithfield communicate (for example, to solve cache coherence problems) via the system bus. Accordingly, the system bus is divided between the processor cores and when working with memory, which leads to increased delays when accessing the memory of both cores simultaneously.
AMD engineers have provided the ability to create multi-core processors still at the development stage of the AMD64 architecture. Thanks to this, some bottlenecks were overcome in the dual-core Athlon 64 X2. Firstly, not all resources are duplicated in new AMD processors. Although each of the Athlon 64 X2 cores has its own set of execution units and a dedicated second-level cache, the memory controller and Hyper-Transport bus controller for both cores are common. The interaction of each of the cores with shared resources is carried out through a special Crossbar switch and a system request queue (System Request Queue). The interaction of cores with each other is also organized at the same level, thanks to which issues of cache coherence are resolved without additional load on the system bus and memory bus.

Thus, the only bottleneck in the Athlon 64 X2 architecture is the throughput of the 6.4 GB per second memory subsystem, which is divided between the processor cores. However, next year AMD plans to switch to using faster types of memory, in particular dual-channel DDR2-667 SDRAM. This step should have a positive effect on increasing the performance of dual-core CPUs.
The lack of support for modern types of high-bandwidth memory in new dual-core processors is explained by the fact that AMD primarily sought to maintain compatibility of the Athlon 64 X2 with existing platforms. As a result, these processors can be used in the same motherboards as regular Athlon 64. Therefore, Athlon 64 X2 has a Socket 939 package, a dual-channel memory controller with support for DDR400 SDRAM and operates with a HyperTransport bus with a frequency of up to 1 GHz. Thanks to this, the only thing required for modern Socket 939 motherboards to support dual-core AMD CPUs is a BIOS update. In this regard, it should be separately noted that, fortunately, AMD engineers managed to fit the power consumption of the Athlon 64 X2 into the previously established limits.

Thus, in terms of compatibility with existing infrastructure, dual-core processors from AMD turned out to be better than competing Intel products. Smithfield is only compatible with the new i955X and NVIDIA nFroce4 (Intel Edition) chipsets, and also places increased demands on the power converter motherboard.
The Athlon 64 X2 processors are based on cores codenamed Toledo and Manchester stepping E, that is, in terms of their functionality (except for the ability to process two computational threads simultaneously), the new CPUs are similar to the Athlon 64 based on the San Diego and Venice cores. Thus, Athlon 64 X2 supports the SSE3 instruction set and also has an improved memory controller. Among the features of the Athlon 64 X2 memory controller, it is worth mentioning the ability to use different DIMM modules in different channels (up to installing modules of different sizes in both memory channels) and the ability to work with four double-sided DIMM modules in DDR400 mode.
Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo) processors, containing two cores with a second level cache of 1 MB per core, consist of approximately 233.2 million transistors and have an area of about 199 square meters. mm. Thus, as one would expect, the die and complexity of a dual-core processor turns out to be approximately twice the die of the corresponding single-core CPU.

Athlon 64 X2 line

The Athlon 64 X2 processor line includes four CPU models with ratings of 4800+, 4600+, 4400+ and 4200+. They can be based on kernels codenamed Toledo and Manchester. The differences between them are the size of the L2 cache. Processors codenamed Toledo, which have ratings of 4800+ and 4400+, have two L2 caches (for each core) with a capacity of 1 MB. CPUs codenamed Manchester have half the cache memory: twice 512 KB each.
The frequencies of dual-core AMD processors are quite high and are equal to 2.2 or 2.4 GHz. That is, the clock speed of the older model of the dual-core AMD processor corresponds to the frequency of the older processor in the Athlon 64 line. This means that even in applications that do not support multithreading, the Athlon 64 X2 will be able to demonstrate a very good level of performance.
As for the electrical and thermal characteristics, then, despite quite high frequencies Athlon 64 X2, they differ little from the corresponding characteristics of single-core CPUs. The maximum heat dissipation of the new processors with two cores is 110 W versus 89 W for conventional Athlon 64, and the supply current has increased to 80A versus 57.4A. However, if we compare the electrical characteristics of the Athlon 64 X2 with the specifications of the Athlon 64 FX-55, the increase in maximum heat dissipation will be only 6W, and the maximum current will not change at all. Thus, we can say that the Athlon 64 X2 processors place approximately the same requirements on the motherboard power converter as the Athlon 64 FX-55.

The complete characteristics of the Athlon 64 X2 processor line are as follows:

It should be noted that AMD is positioning the Athlon 64 X2 as a completely independent line that meets its own goals. Processors of this family are intended for that group of advanced users for whom the ability to use several resource-intensive applications simultaneously is important, or who use digital content creation applications in their daily work, most of which effectively support multi-threading. That is, the Athlon 64 X2 seems to be a kind of analogue of the Athlon 64 FX, but not for players, but for enthusiasts who use PCs for work.

At the same time, the release of Athlon 64 X2 does not cancel the existence of the remaining lines: Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 and Sempron. All of them will continue to coexist peacefully in the market.
But, it should be separately noted that the Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon 64 lines have a unified rating system. This means that Athlon 64 processors with ratings higher than 4000+ will not appear on the market. At the same time, the Athlon 64 FX family of single-core processors will continue to develop as these CPUs are in demand by gamers.
The prices of the Athlon 64 X2 are such that, judging by them, this line can be considered a further development of the regular Athlon 64. In fact, it is so. As the older Athlon 64 models move into the mid-priced category, the top models in this line will be replaced by the Athlon 64 X2.
The Athlon 64 X2 processors are expected to go on sale in June. AMD's suggested retail prices are as follows:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ - $1001;
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ - $803;
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ - $581;
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ - $537.

Athlon 64 X2 4800+: first acquaintance

We managed to get a sample of the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor for testing, which is the senior model in the line of dual-core CPUs from AMD. This processor in its own way appearance turned out to be very similar to his ancestors. In fact, it differs from the usual Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 for Socket 939 only in markings.

Although the Athlon 64 X2 is a typical Socket 939 processor that should be compatible with most motherboards with a 939-pin processor socket, it is currently difficult to work with many motherboards due to the lack of necessary BIOS support. The only one motherboard, on which this CPU was able to work in dual-core mode in our laboratory, turned out to be ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe, for which there is a special technological BIOS with support for Athlon 64 X2. However, it is obvious that with the advent of dual-core AMD processors in widespread sale, this drawback will be eliminated.
It should be noted that without the necessary support from the BIOS, the Athlon 64 X2 in any motherboard works perfectly in single-core mode. That is, without updated firmware, our Athlon 64 X2 4800+ worked like an Athlon 64 4000+.
The popular CPU-Z utility still provides incomplete information about the Athlon 64 X2, although it recognizes it:

Even though CPU-Z detects two cores, all cache information displayed relates to only one of the CPU cores.
Before testing the performance of the resulting processor, we first decided to examine its thermal and electrical characteristics. To begin with, we compared the temperature of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ with the temperature of other Socket 939 processors. For these experiments we used a single air cooler AVC Z7U7414001; The processors were warmed up using the S&M 1.6.0 utility, which turned out to be compatible with the dual-core Athlon 64 X2.

At rest, the temperature of the Athlon 64 X2 is slightly higher than the temperature of Athlon 64 processors based on the Venice core. However, despite having two cores, this CPU is no hotter than single-core processors produced using the 130 nm process technology. Moreover, the same picture is observed at maximum CPU load. The temperature of the Athlon 64 X2 at 100% load is lower than the temperature of the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX, which use 130 nm cores. Thus, thanks to undervoltage power supply and using the revision E kernel, AMD engineers really managed to achieve acceptable heat dissipation of their dual-core processors.
When examining the power consumption of the Athlon 64 X2, we decided to compare it not only with the corresponding characteristics of single-core Socket 939 CPUs, but also with the power consumption of older Intel processors.

Surprising as it may seem, the power consumption of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is lower than the power consumption of the Athlon 64 FX-55. This is explained by the fact that the Athlon 64 FX-55 is based on an old 130 nm core, so there is nothing strange about it. The main conclusion is different: those motherboards that were compatible with the Athlon 64 FX-55 are capable (from the point of view of power converter power) of supporting the new dual-core AMD processors. That is, AMD is absolutely right when it says that all the infrastructure necessary to implement the Athlon 64 X2 is almost ready.

Naturally, we did not miss the opportunity to test the overclocking potential of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+. Unfortunately, the technological BIOS for ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe, which supports Athlon 64 X2, does not allow you to change either the CPU voltage or its multiplier. Therefore, overclocking experiments were performed at the standard voltage for the processor by increasing the frequency of the clock generator.
During the experiments, we were able to increase the clock generator frequency to 225 MHz, while the processor continued to maintain its ability to operate stable. That is, as a result of overclocking, we were able to raise the frequency of the new dual-core CPU from AMD to 2.7 GHz.

So, when overclocking, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ allowed us to increase its frequency by 12.5%, which, in our opinion, is not so bad for a dual-core CPU. At least, we can say that the frequency potential of the Toledo core is close to the potential of other revision E cores: San Diego, Venice and Palermo. So the result achieved during overclocking gives us hope for the appearance of even faster processors in the Athlon 64 X2 family before the introduction of the next technological process.

How we tested

As part of this testing, we compared the performance of the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor with the performance of older processors with single-core architecture. That is, the competitors of the Athlon 64 X2 are the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.
Unfortunately, today we cannot present a comparison of the new dual-core processor from AMD with a competing solution from Intel, a CPU codenamed Smithfield. However, our test results will be supplemented with results from the Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition in the very near future, so stay tuned.
In the meantime, several systems took part in testing, which consisted of the following set of components:

Processors:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Socket 939, 2.4 GHz, 2 x 1024KB L2, core revision E6 - Toledo);
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (Socket 939, 2.6 GHz, 1024KB L2, core revision CG - Clawhammer);
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (Socket 939, 2.4 GHz, 1024KB L2, core revision CG - Clawhammer);
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ (Socket 939, 2.4 GHz, 512KB L2, core revision E3 - Venice);
Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73 GHz (LGA775, 3.73 GHz, 2MB L2);
Intel Pentium 4 660 (LGA775, 3.6 GHz, 2MB L2);
Intel Pentium 4 570 (LGA775, 3.8 GHz, 1MB L2);

Motherboards:

ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe (Socket 939, NVIDIA nForce4 SLI);
NVIDIA C19 CRB Demo Board (LGA775, nForce4 SLI (Intel Edition)).

Memory:

1024MB DDR400 SDRAM (Corsair CMX512-3200XLPRO, 2 x 512MB, 2-2-2-10);
1024MB DDR2-667 SDRAM (Corsair CM2X512A-5400UL, 2 x 512MB, 4-4-4-12).

Graphics card:- PowerColor RADEON X800 XT (PCI-E x16).
Disk subsystem:- Maxtor MaXLine III 250GB (SATA150).
Operating system: - Microsoft Windows XP SP2.

Performance

Office work

To study performance in office applications, we used the SYSmark 2004 and Business Winstone 2004 tests.

The Business Winstone 2004 test simulates user work in common applications: Microsoft Access 2002, Microsoft Excel 2002, Microsoft FrontPage 2002, Microsoft Outlook 2002, Microsoft PowerPoint 2002, Microsoft Project 2002, Microsoft Word 2002, Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition 2003 and WinZip 8.1. The result obtained is quite logical: all these applications do not use multi-threading, and therefore the Athlon 64 X2 is only slightly faster than its single-core counterpart, the Athlon 64 4000+. The slight advantage is explained more by the improved memory controller of the Toledo core, rather than by the presence of a second core.
However, in everyday office work, several applications are often running simultaneously. How effective dual-core AMD processors are in this case is shown below.

In this case, the speed of work in Microsoft Outlook is measured and Internet Explorer, while in background files are being copied. However, as the diagram below shows, copying files is not such a difficult task and the dual-core architecture does not provide any benefit here.

This test is a little more difficult. Here, files are archived using Winzip in the background while the user works in Excel and Word in the foreground. And in this case, we get a very tangible dividend from dual-core technology. The Athlon 64 X2 4800+, operating at 2.4 GHz, outperforms not only the Athlon 64 4000+, but also the single-core Athlon 64 FX-55 with a frequency of 2.6 GHz.

As the tasks running in the background become more complex, the benefits of dual-core architecture begin to emerge more and more. In this case, the user's work in Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Access, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft FrontPage and WinZip is simulated, while anti-virus scanning occurs in the background. In this test, running applications are able to properly load both cores of the Athlon 64 X2, the result of which is not long in coming. A dual-core processor solves tasks one and a half times faster than a similar single-core processor.

Here we simulate the work of a user receiving a letter in Outlook 2002, which contains a set of documents in a zip archive. While the received files are scanned for viruses using VirusScan 7.0, the user views the e-mail and makes notes in the Outlook calendar. The user then browses the corporate website and some documents using Internet Explorer 6.0.
This user operation model involves the use of multi-threading, so the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ demonstrates higher performance than single-core processors from AMD and Intel. Note that Pentium 4 processors with “virtual” multi-threading Hyper-Threading technology cannot boast as high performance as the Athlon 64 X2, which has two real independent processor cores.

In this benchmark, a hypothetical user edits text in Word 2002 and also uses Dragon NaturallySpeaking 6 to convert the audio file to Text Document. The finished document is converted to pdf format using Acrobat 5.0.5. Then, using the generated document, a presentation is created in PowerPoint 2002. And in this case, the Athlon 64 X2 again comes out on top.

Here the work model is as follows: the user opens a database in Access 2002 and runs a series of queries. Documents are archived using WinZip 8.1. The query results are exported to Excel 2002, and a chart is built based on them. Although in this case the positive effect of dual-core is also present, processors of the Pentium 4 family cope with this work somewhat faster.
In general, the following can be said regarding the justification of using dual-core processors in office applications. These types of applications themselves are rarely optimized for multi-threaded workloads. Therefore, it is difficult to gain benefits when working in one specific application on a dual-core processor. However, if the work model is such that some of the resource-intensive tasks are performed in the background, then processors with two cores can provide a very noticeable increase in performance.

Digital Content Creation

In this section, we will again use the comprehensive tests of SYSmark 2004 and Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004.

The benchmark simulates work in the following applications: Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1, Adobe Premiere 6.50, Macromedia Director MX 9.0, Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 6.1, Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980, NewTek LightWave 3D 7.5b, Steinberg WaveLab 4.0f. Since most applications designed for creating and processing digital content support multi-threading, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+'s success in this test is not at all surprising. Moreover, we note that the advantage of this dual-core CPU manifests itself even when parallel operation in several applications is not used.

When multiple applications are running simultaneously, dual-core processors are capable of delivering even more impressive results. For example, in this test, an image is rendered into a bmp file in the 3ds max 5.1 package, and, at the same time, the user prepares web pages in Dreamweaver MX. The user then renders in vector graphic format 3D animation.

In this case, we simulate the work of a user in Premiere 6.5, who creates a video clip from several other videos in raw format and separate audio tracks. While waiting for the operation to complete, the user also prepares an image in Photoshop 7.01, modifying the existing image and saving it to disk. After completing the creation of the video, the user edits it and adds special effects to After Effects 5.5.
And again we see a gigantic advantage of the dual-core architecture from AMD over both the regular Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX, and over the Pentium 4 with “virtual” multi-core Hyper-Threading technology.

And here is another manifestation of the triumph of AMD’s dual-core architecture. Its reasons are the same as in the previous case. They lie in the work model used. Here, a hypothetical user will unzip the website content from a zip file while using Flash MX to open the exported 3D vector graphics movie. The user then modifies it to include other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The final video with special effects is compressed with using Windows Media Encoder 9 for broadcasting over the Internet. The created website is then built in Dreamweaver MX, and in parallel the system is scanned for viruses using VirusScan 7.0.
Thus, it must be recognized that for applications that work with digital content, a dual-core architecture is very beneficial. Almost any task of this type can effectively load both CPU cores simultaneously, which leads to a significant increase in system speed.

PCMark04, 3DMark 2001 SE, 3DMark05

Separately, we decided to look at the speed of the Athlon 64 X2 in popular synthetic benchmarks from FutureMark.

As we have repeatedly noted before, the PCMark04 test is optimized for multi-threaded systems. That is why Pentium 4 processors with Hyper-Threading technology were shown in it top scores, rather than the CPU of the Athlon 64 family. However, now the situation has changed. The two real cores in the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ put this processor at the top of the chart.

Graphics tests of the 3DMark family do not support multithreading in any form. Therefore, the results of the Athlon 64 X2 differ little from those of the regular Athlon 64 with a frequency of 2.4 GHz. The slight advantage over the Athlon 64 4000+ is explained by the presence of an improved memory controller in the Toledo core, and over the Athlon 64 3800+ - by a large amount of cache memory.
However, 3DMark05 includes a couple of tests that can use multithreading. These are CPU tests. In these benchmarks, the central processor is charged with software emulation of vertex shaders, and, in addition, the second thread calculates the physics of the game environment.

The results are quite natural. If an application is able to use two cores, then dual-core processors are much faster than single-core processors.

Gaming applications

Unfortunately, modern gaming applications do not support multithreading. Despite the fact that the technology of “virtual” multi-core Hyper-Threading appeared a long time ago, game developers are in no hurry to divide the calculations performed by the game engine into several threads. And the point, most likely, is not that it’s difficult to do this for games. Apparently, the increase in the computing capabilities of the processor for games is not so important, since the main load in tasks of this type falls on the video card.
However, the appearance of dual-core CPUs on the market gives some hope that game manufacturers will begin to load the central processor with calculations more. The result of this could be the emergence of a new generation of games with advanced artificial intelligence and realistic physics.

In the meantime, there is no point in using dual-core CPUs in gaming systems. Therefore, by the way, AMD is not going to stop developing its line of processors aimed specifically at gamers, the Athlon 64 FX. These processors are characterized by higher frequencies and the presence of a single computing core.

Information compression

Unfortunately, WinRAR does not support multithreading, so the result of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is practically no different from the result of the regular Athlon 64 4000+.

However, there are archivers that can effectively use dual cores. For example, 7zip. When tested there, the results of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ fully justify the cost of this processor.

Audio and video encoding

Until recently, the popular mp3 codec Lame did not support multithreading. However, the newly released version 3.97 alpha 2 corrected this drawback. As a result, Pentium 4 processors began to encode audio faster than the Athlon 64, and the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, although ahead of its single-core counterparts, is still somewhat behind the older models of the Pentium 4 family and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.

Although the Mainconcept codec can use two processing cores, the speed of the Athlon 64 X2 is not much higher than the performance demonstrated by its single-core counterparts. Moreover, this advantage is partly explained not only by the dual-core architecture, but also by support for SSE3 commands, as well as an improved memory controller. As a result, Pentium 4 with one core in Mainconcept are noticeably faster than Athlon 64 X2 4800+.

When encoding MPEG-4 with the popular DiVX codec, the picture is completely different. The Athlon 64 X2, thanks to the presence of a second core, receives a good increase in speed, which allows it to outperform even older Pentium 4 models.

The XviD codec also supports multithreading, but adding a second core in this case gives a much smaller increase in speed than in the DiVX episode.

Obviously, Windows Media Encoder is the best optimized codec for multi-core architectures. For example, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ can encode using this codec 1.7 times faster than a single-core Athlon 64 4000+ running at the same clock speed. As a result, talking about any kind of competition between single-core and dual-core processors in WME is simply pointless.
Like digital content processing applications, the vast majority of codecs have long been optimized for Hyper-Threading. As a result, dual-core processors, which allow two computational threads to be executed simultaneously, perform encoding faster than single-core processors. That is, the use of systems with a CPU with two cores for encoding audio and video content is quite justified.

Editing images and videos

Adobe's popular video processing and image editing products are well optimized for multiprocessor systems and Hyper-Threading. Therefore, in Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere, the dual-core processor from AMD demonstrates extremely high performance, significantly exceeding the performance not only of the Athlon 64 FX-55, but also of the Pentium 4 processors, which are faster in tasks of this class.

Text recognising

A fairly popular program for optical text recognition, ABBYY Finereader, although it is optimized for processors with Hyper-Threading technology, works with only one thread on the Athlon 64 X2. There is an obvious mistake by programmers who detect the possibility of parallelizing calculations by the name of the processor.
Unfortunately, similar examples of incorrect programming still occur today. Let's hope that today the number of applications like ABBYY Finereader is minimal, and in the near future their number will be reduced to zero.

Mathematical calculations

Strange as it may seem, the popular mathematical packages MATLAB and Mathematica in the operating room version Windows systems XP does not support multithreading. Therefore, in these tasks the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ performs approximately on the same level as the Athlon 64 4000+, surpassing it only due to a better optimized memory controller.

But many mathematical modeling tasks make it possible to organize parallelization of calculations, which gives a good performance increase when using dual-core CPUs. This is confirmed by the ScienceMark test.

3D rendering

Final rendering is a task that can be easily and efficiently parallelized. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that using an Athlon 64 X2 processor equipped with two computing cores when working in 3ds max allows you to get a very good increase in performance.

A similar picture is observed in Lightwave. Thus, the use of dual-core processors in final rendering is no less beneficial than in image and video processing applications.

General impressions

Before formulating general conclusions based on the results of our testing, a few words should be said about what was left behind the scenes. Namely, about the comfort of using systems equipped with dual-core processors. The fact is that in a system with one single-core processor, for example, an Athlon 64, only one computational thread can be executed at any given time. This means that if several applications are running on the system at the same time, the OC scheduler is forced to switch processor resources between tasks with great frequency.

Due to the fact that modern processors are very fast, switching between tasks usually remains invisible to the user’s eye. However, there are also applications that are difficult to interrupt to transfer CPU time to other tasks in the queue. In this case, the operating system begins to slow down, which often causes irritation for the person sitting at the computer. Also, it is often possible to observe a situation where an application, having taken away processor resources, “freezes”, and such an application can be very difficult to remove from execution, since it does not give up processor resources even to the operating system scheduler.

Such problems arise in systems equipped with dual-core processors much less frequently. The fact is that processors with two cores are capable of simultaneously executing two computational threads; accordingly, for the functioning of the scheduler, there are twice as many free resources that can be divided between running applications. In fact, in order for work on a system with a dual-core processor to become uncomfortable, there must be a simultaneous intersection of two processes trying to seize undivided use of all CPU resources.

In conclusion, we decided to conduct a small experiment showing how the parallel execution of a large number of resource-intensive applications affects the performance of a system with a single-core and dual-core processor. To do this, we measured the number of fps in Half-Life 2, running several copies of the WinRAR archiver in the background.

As you can see, when using an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor in the system, performance in Half-Life 2 remains at an acceptable level much longer than in a system with a single-core, but higher-frequency Athlon 64 FX-55 processor. In fact, on a system with a single-core processor, running one background application already leads to a twofold drop in speed. As the number of tasks running in the background further increases, performance drops to obscene levels.
On a system with a dual-core processor, it is possible to maintain high performance of an application running in the foreground for much longer. Launching one copy of WinRAR goes almost unnoticed, adding more background applications, while having an impact on the foreground task, results in a much smaller performance hit. It should be noted that the drop in speed in this case is caused not so much by a lack of processor resources, but by the division of limited bandwidth memory buses between running applications. That is, unless background tasks are actively using memory, the foreground application is unlikely to respond much to increased background load.

conclusions

Today we had our first acquaintance with dual-core processors from AMD. As the tests have shown, the idea of combining two cores in one processor has demonstrated its viability in practice.
The use of dual-core processors in desktop systems can significantly increase the speed of a number of applications that effectively use multithreading. Due to the fact that virtual multithreading technology, Hyper-Threading, has been present in Pentium 4 family processors for a very long time, software developers currently offer a fairly large number of programs that can benefit from the dual-core CPU architecture. Thus, among the applications whose speed will be increased on dual-core processors, it should be noted utilities for video and audio encoding, 3D modeling and rendering systems, photo and video editing programs, as well as professional graphic applications CAD class.
At the same time, there is a large amount of software that does not use multithreading or uses it extremely limitedly. Among the prominent representatives of such programs are office applications, web browsers, email clients, media players, and games. However, even when working in such applications, the dual-core CPU architecture can have a positive impact. For example, in cases where several applications are running simultaneously.
Summarizing the above, in the graph below we simply give a numerical expression of the advantage of the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor over the single-core Athlon 64 4000+ operating at the same frequency of 2.4 GHz.

As you can see from the graph, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ turns out to be much faster in many applications than the older CPU in the Athlon 64 family. And, if not for the fabulously high cost of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, exceeding $1000, then this CPU could easily be called very profitable acquisition. Moreover, in no application does it lag behind its single-core counterparts.
Considering the price of the Athlon 64 X2, it should be admitted that today these processors, along with the Athlon 64 FX, can only be another offer for wealthy enthusiasts. Those for whom it is not gaming performance that is primarily important, but speed in other applications, will pay attention to the Athlon 64 X2 line. Extreme gamers will obviously remain committed to the Athlon 64 FX.

The review of dual-core processors on our website does not end here. In the coming days, expect the second part of the epic, which will talk about dual-core CPUs from Intel.

Despite the fact that 64-bit AMD processors have been announced a long time ago, they still have not gained a significant market share in Russia, despite all their advantages. In my opinion, there are four main reasons for this.

Firstly, it was immediately announced that Socket 754 would not live long, so why invest money in a platform that was doomed to disappear from the very beginning? Secondly, AMD has taught users that its processors are cheaper than those of its competitor, but the A64 has approximate parity with Intel processors not only in performance, but also in price. Thirdly, the overclocking potential of the first copies of AMD Athlon 64 processors turned out to be small, and in the near future we will not see a transition to a new stepping with improved overclockability. And if so, then why not take the well-accelerating P4 instead of the A64, especially since their prices are comparable? Well, and finally, fourthly, despite numerous delays in the announcement of A64 processors, despite the fact that by the time of the announcement the vast majority of manufacturers had already had samples of motherboards ready for a long time, it turned out that the chipsets were far from ideal, and the boards for Athlon 64 leaves much to be desired.

The NVIDIA nForce 3 150 chipset failed to repeat the success of its predecessor, nForce2, the best of the chipsets designed for Socket A processors. Its capabilities turned out to be poorer than those of the competing chipset from VIA, the HyperTransport bus worked slower, and the ability to lock frequencies on the AGP and PCI buses during overclocking was ignored by manufacturers. The VIA K8T800 chipset was free of the first two shortcomings; however, it was initially unable to fix AGP and PCI frequencies.

A good illustration of what has been said can be the review I wrote back in January of the Gigabyte GA-K8NNXP motherboard (NVIDIA nForce3 150). That was the first time I tested the Athlon 64 processor and the motherboard for it, I learned new things myself and told you about them. I spent a lot of time studying, but in the end I was dissatisfied. Key phrase sounded like this: "...the processor worked more or less stably only at a frequency of 225 MHz at a voltage of 1.6 V" and the whole problem is in the words "more or less." The system passed tests at 225 MHz, but could easily produce an error even at 220 MHz. Perhaps it was that the AGP/PCI frequencies were too high or the BIOS version was too crude, because soon I tested a motherboard based on the VIA K8T800 chipset and it behaved just as unintelligibly. A rare case - I tested the device, but did not write a report about it.

Now, fortunately, the situation is beginning to change for the better. Boards and processors for Socket 939 have already appeared on sale, the cost of 64-bit AMD processors is decreasing, and for Socket 754 we are promised inexpensive processors Sempron 3100+. Judging by the first reviews, processors based on the “real” Newcastle core, in contrast to the first “pseudo-NewCastle”, which were processors based on the ClawHammer core, in which half of the cache memory was disabled, overclock a little better, while the competitor, on the contrary, overclocks their processors on the hot and energy-intensive Prescott core.

advertising

In addition to the above-mentioned reasons why the popularity of 64-bit AMD processors should inevitably increase in the near future, another one has been added - chipset manufacturers have prepared new logic sets for these processors. So, the NVIDIA nForce 3 150 chipset has been replaced by a new family of NVIDIA nForce 3 250 chipsets. If you are interested in details regarding the capabilities of the new chipset, then I recommend reading the review of the Chaintech Zenith ZNF3-250 motherboard, where they are discussed in great detail. In short, the new chipset has lost all the shortcomings of the previous one and looks very tempting.

Today I propose to study the Gigabyte GA-K8NS motherboard, based on the NVIDIA nForce 3 250 chipset and designed for Socket 754 processors.

Gigabyte GA-K8NS
Chipset	NVIDIA nForce3 250
Processors	Socket 754 AMD Athlon 64
Memory	Type: DDR400/ 333/ 266 -184pin
Memory	Total capacity up to 3GB DDR memory in 3 DIMM slots
Embedded Peripherals	Network chip ICS 1883 LAN PHY
Embedded Peripherals	Realtek ALC850 audio codec
I/O connectors	2 Serial ATA connectors
	1 FDD port
	2 UDMA ATA 133/100/66 Bus Master IDE ports
	2 USB 2.0/1.1 connectors (supports up to 4 ports)
	S/P DIF input/output connector
	2 fan headers
	CD/AUX in
	1 Gaming/Midi port
Expansion slots	1 AGP slot (8x/4x AGP 3.0 support)
Expansion slots	5 PCI slots(PCI 2.3 compliant)
Back panel	PS/2 keyboard/mouse
	1 LPT port
	1 RJ45 port
	4 USB 2.0/1.1 ports
	2 COM ports
	Audio connectors (line-in, line output, microphone)
Form factor	ATX (30.5 cm x 23.0 cm)
BIOS	2 Mbit flash ROM, Award BIOS

As you can see, this version of the board does not require additional controllers and all its capabilities are based on the rich capabilities of the NVIDIA nForce3 250 chipset. Formally, like its predecessor, this is not a chipset, since the functionality of the northern and south bridges combined in one chip. Engineers are experimenting with wiring and perhaps that is why the motherboard Gigabyte board The GA-K8NS has some unique design features. For example, I have never seen Serial-ATA connectors located above an AGP slot.

The Athlon 64 x2 model 5200+ was positioned by the manufacturer as a mid-level dual-core solution based on AM2. It is with his example that the procedure for overclocking this family of devices will be outlined. Its safety margin is quite good, and if you had the appropriate components, you could get chips with indexes 6000+ or 6400+ instead.

The meaning of CPU overclocking

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor model 5200+ can easily be converted to a 6400+. To do this, you just need to increase its clock frequency (this is the meaning of overclocking). As a result, the final performance of the system will increase. But this will also increase the computer's power consumption. Therefore, not everything is so simple. Most components computer system must have a safety margin. Accordingly, the motherboard, memory modules, power supply and case must be more High Quality, this means that their cost will be higher. Also, the CPU cooling system and thermal paste must be specially selected specifically for the overclocking procedure. But it is not recommended to experiment with the standard cooling system. It is designed for a standard processor thermal package and will not cope with increased load.

Positioning

The characteristics of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor clearly indicate that it belonged to the middle segment of dual-core chips. There were also less productive solutions - 3800+ and 4000+. This is the entry level. Well, higher in the hierarchy there were CPUs with indexes 6000+ and 6400+. The first two processor models could theoretically be overclocked and get 5200+ out of them. Well, the 5200+ itself could be modified to 3200 MHz, and due to this, get a variation of 6000+ or even 6400+. Moreover technical specifications theirs were almost identical. The only thing that could change was the amount of second-level cache and the technological process. As a result, their performance level after overclocking was practically the same. So it turned out that at a lower cost, the end owner received a more productive system.

Chip Specifications

AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor specifications may vary significantly. After all, three modifications of it were released. The first of them was codenamed Windsor F2. It operated at a clock frequency of 2.6 GHz, had 128 KB of first-level cache and, accordingly, 2 MB of second-level cache. This semiconductor crystal was manufactured according to the standards of a 90 nm technological process, and its thermal package was equal to 89 W. At the same time, its maximum temperature could reach 70 degrees. Well, the voltage supplied to the CPU could be 1.3 V or 1.35 V.

A little later, a chip codenamed Windsor F3 appeared on sale. In this modification of the processor, the voltage changed (in this case it dropped to 1.2 V and 1.25 V, respectively), the maximum operating temperature increased to 72 degrees and the thermal package decreased to 65 W. To top it off, the technological process itself has changed - from 90 nm to 65 nm.

The last, third version of the processor was codenamed Brisbane G2. In this case, the frequency was raised by 100 MHz and was already 2.7 GHz. The voltage could be equal to 1.325 V, 1.35 V or 1.375 V. The maximum operating temperature was reduced to 68 degrees, and the thermal package, as in the previous case, was equal to 65 W. Well, the chip itself was manufactured using a more advanced 65 nm technological process.

Socket

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor model 5200+ was installed in the AM2 socket. Its second name is socket 940. Electrically and in terms of software, it is compatible with solutions based on AM2+. Accordingly, it is still possible to purchase a motherboard for it. But the CPU itself is quite difficult to buy. This is not surprising: the processor went on sale in 2007. Since then, three generations of devices have already changed.

Selection of motherboard

A fairly large set of motherboards based on the AM2 and AM2+ sockets supported the AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200 processor. Their characteristics were very diverse. But to make maximum overclocking of this semiconductor chip possible, it is recommended to pay attention to solutions based on the 790FX or 790X chipset. Such motherboards were more expensive than average. This is logical, since they had much better overclocking capabilities. Also, the board must be made in the ATX form factor. You can, of course, try to overclock this chip on mini-ATX solutions, but the dense arrangement of radio components on them can lead to undesirable consequences: overheating of the motherboard and central processor and their failure. Specific examples include Sapphire's PC-AM2RD790FX or MSI's 790XT-G45. Also, a worthy alternative to the previously mentioned solutions can be the M2N32-SLI Deluxe from Asus based on the nForce590SLI chipset developed by NVIDIA.

Cooling system

Overclocking an AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor is impossible without a high-quality cooling system. The cooler that comes in the boxed version of this chip is not suitable for these purposes. It is designed for a fixed thermal load. As CPU performance increases, its thermal package increases, and standard system cooling will no longer cope. Therefore, you need to buy a more advanced one, with improved technical characteristics. We can recommend using the CNPS9700LED cooler from Zalman for these purposes. If you have it, this processor can be safely overclocked to 3100-3200 MHz. In this case, there will definitely not be any special problems with CPU overheating.

Thermal paste

Another important component to consider before AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+ is thermal paste. After all, the chip will not operate in normal load mode, but in a state of increased performance. Accordingly, more stringent requirements are put forward for the quality of thermal paste. It should provide improved heat dissipation. For these purposes, it is recommended to replace the standard thermal paste with KPT-8, which is perfect for overclocking conditions.

Frame

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200 processor will run at higher temperatures during overclocking. In some cases it can rise to 55-60 degrees. To compensate for this increased temperature, a high-quality replacement of thermal paste and cooling system will not be enough. You also need a housing in which air flows could circulate well, and thereby ensure additional cooling. That is, inside system unit There should be as much free space as possible, and this would allow the computer components to be cooled by convection. It will be even better if additional fans are installed in it.

Overclocking process

Now let's figure out how to overclock the AMD ATHLON 64 x2 processor. Let's find out this using the example of the 5200+ model. The CPU overclocking algorithm in this case will be as follows.

When you turn on the PC, press the Delete key. After this, the BIOS blue screen will open.
Then we find the section associated with the operation of RAM and reduce the frequency of its operation to a minimum. For example, the value for DDR1 is set to 333 MHz, and we lower the frequency to 200 MHz.
Next, save the changes made and load operating system. Then, using a toy or test program (for example, CPU-Z and Prime95), we check the performance of the PC.
Reboot the PC again and go into the BIOS. Here we now find an item related to the operation of the PCI bus and fix its frequency. In the same place you need to fix this indicator for the graphics bus. In the first case the value should be set to 33 MHz.
Save the settings and restart the PC. We check its functionality again.
The next step is to reboot the system. We re-enter the BIOS. Here we find the parameter associated with the HyperTransport bus and set the system bus frequency to 400 MHz. Save the values and restart the PC. After loading the OS, we test the stability of the system.
Then we reboot the PC and enter the BIOS again. Here you now need to go to the processor parameters section and increase the system bus frequency by 10 MHz. Save the changes and restart the computer. Checking the stability of the system. Then, gradually increasing the processor frequency, we reach the point where it stops working stably. Next, we return to the previous value and test the system again.
Then you can try to further overclock the chip using its multiplier, which should be in the same section. At the same time, after each change to the BIOS, we save the parameters and check the functionality of the system.

If during overclocking the PC starts to freeze and it is impossible to return to previous values, then you need to reset the BIOS settings to factory settings. To do this, just find at the bottom of the motherboard, next to the battery, a jumper labeled Clear CMOS and move it for 3 seconds from pins 1 and 2 to pins 2 and 3.

Checking system stability

Not only the maximum temperature of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor can lead to unstable operation of the computer system. The reason may be due to a number of additional factors. Therefore, during the overclocking process, it is recommended to conduct a comprehensive check of the reliability of the PC. The Everest program is best suited to solve this problem. It is with its help that you can check the reliability and stability of your computer during overclocking. To do this, it is enough to run this utility after each change made and after loading the OS and check the status of the system’s hardware and software resources. If any value is outside the acceptable limits, then you need to restart the computer and return to the previous settings, and then test everything again.

Cooling system monitoring

The temperature of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor depends on the operation of the cooling system. Therefore, after completing the overclocking procedure, it is necessary to check the stability and reliability of the cooler. For these purposes, it is best to use the SpeedFAN program. It is free and its level of functionality is sufficient. Downloading it from the Internet and installing it on your PC is not difficult. Next, we launch it and periodically, for 15-25 minutes, control the number of revolutions of the processor cooler. If this number is stable and does not decrease, then everything is fine with the CPU cooling system.

Chip temperature

The operating temperature of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor in normal mode should vary from 35 to 50 degrees. During overclocking, this range will decrease towards the last value. At a certain stage, the CPU temperature may even exceed 50 degrees, and there is nothing to worry about. The maximum permissible value is 60 ˚С, when approaching it, it is recommended to stop any experiments with overclocking. A higher temperature value can adversely affect the semiconductor chip of the processor and damage it. To take measurements during the operation, it is recommended to use the CPU-Z utility. Moreover, temperature registration must be carried out after each the change made in BIOS. You also need to maintain an interval of 15-25 minutes, during which you periodically check how hot the chip is.

Introduction

Recently, the computer industry market has pleased us with a huge variety of new products in the world of components. It seemed like just recently that new DDR2 RAM standards and dual-core processors entered our lives, new platforms for these systems appeared, but progress does not stand still and now quad-core processors have already been announced, for which new platforms will be developed. This naturally affected the video card market as well. Every day, leading manufacturers modify video card models, increase power, and improve cooling systems. However, not all users personal computers I can afford all these new items. What should you do if you want to play modern games, but don’t have enough money to buy a modern gaming computer configuration? After the emergence and spread of the Socket 939 platform, the old Socket 754 completely faded into the background. Many considered it a “dead end” branch. However, after the announcement of the AM2 platform, Socket 939 itself found itself in a similar situation. In addition, about a year ago, AMD pleased owners of motherboards with Socket 754 with the release of AMD Athlon 64 processors, based on the most modern revision of the Venice core with E6 stepping. Therefore, we finally decided to look at what the Socket 754 platform is capable of today and try to understand: is it really necessary to make hardware sellers happy with a certain amount of banknotes to buy a new computer that meets the requirements of modern games, or is it worth investing less money and breathing life into , already become native, the contents of the system unit.

Test systems

3 systems took part in testing:

System No. 1

Motherboard ASUS K8N, socket 754, NVIDIA nForce3 250
Processor AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (o/c 236x10), Socket 754 (o/c 236x10)
Memory 2 x 512 MB Kingston PC3200
Video card GF 6800 GS Palit 256mb, AGP, Retail (o/c 500core/1300mem)
Power supply Powerman Pro (Chieftec) 460W

System No. 2

Motherboard MSI K8N NEO3-FSR, socket 754, NVIDIA nForce 4-4X
Processor AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (o/c 236x10), Socket 754
Memory 2 x 512 MB SAMSUNG PC3200
Video card XFX GF 7600 GS eXtreme Edition (XXX) 256mb, PCI-E (o/c 500core/1300mem)
Power supply DELTA 350-100A 340W

System No. 3

Motherboard ASUS M2N SLI Deluxe, socket AM2, nForce570
Processor AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+, 2.4 GHz, Socket AM2
Memory 1024 MB Samsung DDR2 PC4200
Video card Gigabyte GF 7600GT 256MB, PCI-E
Power supply 430W

Further, in the performance comparison tables and comments, we will call them this way: System No. 1, System No. 2 and System No. 3, respectively. The latter system was not overclocked, since in our review it represents the option of purchasing a new PC (instead of an upgrade) that has sufficient performance in modern games, and as a result, does not need overclocking.

Before testing begins, I would like to say a few words about the motherboards, processors and video cards that took part in the testing.

Description of motherboards

1. ASUS K8N motherboard

Inexpensive, with quite rich capabilities, the Asus K8N board is based on the NVIDIA nForce3 250 chipset and supports AMD Athlon64 and AMD Sempron processors. Of course, it’s difficult to call this board an “overclocker’s dream,” but it fully justifies the money invested in it. The BIOS settings (AMI flash BIOS) can please the most demanding users - the processor bus frequency can be changed from 200 to 300 MHz in 1 MHz steps (it should be noted that the ASUS K8N has fixed PCI \ AGP bus frequencies, which is very important when overclocking ), HyperTransport bus multiplier, the board allows you to change the voltage supplied to the processor, memory, and AGP bus. In addition, ASUS K8N allows you to fine tuning memory timings, which is also very important when overclocking the system. During the overclocking process, an interesting feature was revealed in this board - stable overclocking of the processor is possible only by increasing the AGP bus frequency by 1-2 MHz from the default 66 MHz (I express my gratitude to Maxim for the valuable information). Separately, I would like to note some features of the board’s operation with video cards of the GF6xxx family. This problem is quite relevant for the nForce3 + GF6xxx chipset and it manifests itself in the image freezing for a short time in various 3D applications (the so-called “freezes”). While using this board in conjunction with the PALIT GF6800GS AGP video card, we also occasionally observed the above-mentioned picture freezes. However, in general, the board left the most pleasant impressions. Software, which comes complete with the motherboard, pleased me with its wide variety useful programs and utilities. I would especially like to note the ASUS EZ Flash function, which allows you to update the BIOS directly through its settings menu. The update no longer requires DOS-based ROM flashing utilities and boot floppy disks; you only need to connect your computer to the Internet.

2. MSI K8N Neo-3F motherboard

The purchase of this motherboard was prompted by the desire to be able to use a video card with a PCI-E 16x interface in my system (the board is based on the nForce 4-4x chipset) for little money, i.e. without changing the rest of the system unit configuration. In addition, before purchasing a new video card with a PCI-E interface, there was a need to somehow operate the computer for three to four months, and here, the MSI K8N Neo-3F became the only upgrade option, thanks to the presence of an AGP port. Of course, full support for AGP 8x should have been forgotten immediately (which the official MSI website carefully warns about), which was confirmed by tests that were carried out independently and found on the Internet. However, the presence of this port allowed me, with some restrictions, to calmly wait until mid-range PCI-E video cards appeared in our wilderness price range for reasonable money.

And here another problem arises: when overclocking the memory, the mother goes into a downgrade, from which she returns only by resetting the jumper on the motherboard. To this we can add the impossibility of disabling floppy disk checking and a not very convenient scheme for controlling the rotation of the processor fan. But there are round trains included. In general, there has never been a more ambiguous perception in my life. But this does not mean at all that I was ultimately dissatisfied with the purchase; the motherboard earns back every ruble invested in it.

3. ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe motherboard

The Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe motherboard is based on the NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI chipset. Specifications Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe is a combination of chipset capabilities and several additional controllers. We will not mention obvious things, such as support for Socket AM2 processors, SLI in x8 mode and DDR2 memory. Six Serial ATA ports and one Ultra DMA 133/100/66/33 are implemented by the chipset, and in addition there is a JMicron JMB363 controller, one of the pair of ports of which is located next to the first PCI-E x16 connector, and the second is connected to back panel. Just above it on the rear panel is an IEEE 1394 connector, which is implemented additional controller Texas Instruments. The chipset provides 10 USB 2.0 ports, four of them are located on the rear panel, and two gigabit network controllers operating via Marvell PHY. The ADI 1988B is responsible for 8-channel High Definition Audio, and neither coaxial nor optical S/PDIF is forgotten. I/O functions are managed by ITE IT8716F-S. I would like to separately note that the Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe board has six (sic!) connectors for fans. They are also located quite conveniently for connection: two closer to the rear panel of connectors, two on top and two in the lower right corner of the board.

If we talk about the completeness, it is quite decent and includes:

SLI bridge;
UltraDMA 133/100/66 cable;
floppy cable;
6 SATA cables;
3 cables for connecting power to 6 SATA devices;
plank with two USB connectors 2.0;
bracket with IEEE1394 connector;
User Manual and Quick Start Guide;
CD with drivers and utilities;
InterVideo Media Launcher software package;
plug for the rear panel;
Array2-SNA microphone manufactured by Andrea Electronics Corporation.

Motherboard BIOS Asus boards M2N-SLI Deluxe is based on code from Award and has good overclocking capabilities. Among them:

change of clock generator frequency: 200-400 MHz in 1 MHz steps;
PCI-E bus frequency change: 100-200 MHz in 1 MHz steps;
DDR2 memory voltage change: 1.8-2.5 V in steps of 0.05 V;
voltage change on the processor: 0.8-1.5625 V in steps of 0.0125 V;
change the multiplier in steps of 1.

Noteworthy is the very high upper limit for increasing memory voltage. In earlier BIOS versions, the multiplier was changed in increments of 0.5.

In addition, in the Advanced Voltage Control section there are the following options for changing voltages:

CPU/Chipset HT Voltage: 1.2-1.5 V, 0.05 V steps;
Chipset Core Voltage: 1.4-1.6 V, 0.1 V steps;
Chipset Standby Core Voltage: 1.4 or 1.6 V;
Chipset PCI-E Voltage: 1.5-1.7 V, 0.05 V step;
CPU VCore Offset Voltage: Disabled, Offset 100 mV.

As for memory timings, the list of parameters available for changing is very large and can only fit on several sheets.

Description of processors

1. AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Socket 754, Venice, ADA3000AKK4BX

As the name suggests, the processor is based on a revision of the Venice core, has 512 KB L2 cache, an operating processor frequency of 2 GHz, an operating voltage of 1.35 V, a multiplier of 10x. Considering the good overclocking potential of this family of processors, we immediately increased the FSB frequency in the BIOS to 240 MHz, the HyperTransport bus frequency was reduced to 3, and the AMD QnQ function was disabled. The system booted on the first try, the CPU -z program determined that the processor was operating at a frequency of 2.4 GHz (240x10), however, during some tests the system froze, therefore, for stable operation, the FSB bus frequency was reduced to 236 MHz, and further testing was carried out with a clock frequency of 2.36 GHz (236x10).

2. AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Socket 754, Venice, ADA3000AKK4BX (OEM)

The brother of the above-mentioned processor, only in OEM packaging, demonstrated similar overclocking capabilities with similar overclocking actions. A boxed cooler from the Sempron 2600+ Soket 754 processor was used for cooling.

3. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+

Low-power processors for Socket AM2 systems were announced by AMD back in mid-May. Then the company released two classes of economical processors - with a typical heat dissipation of 65 and 35 W. These classifications are still in effect today. The first group of CPUs currently includes fairly powerful dual-core processors operating at frequencies up to 2.4 GHz inclusive and with ratings of 3800+, 4200+ and 4600+. Our testing involved the Athlon 64 X2 4600+, operating at a frequency of 2.4 GHz and having a cache memory of 512 KB. The processor was not overclocked; the processor frequency remained default during testing - 2.4 GHz.

Description of video cards

Brief characteristics:

bus interface: AGP;
memory interface: 256 bits;
memory type: 256 MB GDDR3;
RAMDACs: 400 MHz;
chip frequency: 450 MHz;
memory frequency: 1200 MHz.

Package Included:

user manual (including in Russian);
DVI to VGA adapter;
driver disk;
disk with the CyberLink Power DVD program;
disc with the game Toca Race Driver.

It should be noted that the card by default operated at higher frequencies than the reference ones. Thus, the core frequency in Low power 3D mode was 350 MHz, and in Performance 3D mode it was 450 MHz, and the memory frequency was 1200 MHz. The card has a standard cooling system; the memory chips are covered with aluminum radiators. Using the well-known RivaTuner 2.0 RC 16 program, the video card was overclocked to frequencies of 500/1300 MHz, at which further testing was carried out.

Brief characteristics:

bus interface: PCI-E 16x;
memory interface: 128 bit;
memory type: 256 MB GDDR2;
RAMDACs: 400 MHz;
chip frequency: 500 MHz;
memory frequency: 900 MHz.

The video card of the famous American brand XFX is assembled, as usual, in China. It looks like a normal 7600GS DDR2 reference design with standard passive cooling used by other brands. The highlight lies in the frequency of the chip and memory, and it is 500 MHz for the chip and 900 MHz for the memory, using chips manufactured by Infenion with an access time of 2.3 ns. Let me remind you that the frequencies of “ordinary” 7600GS DDR2 are 400/800. Well, not a bad increase for a small difference in price. It’s nice that the manufacturer has used the ability to take readings from the thermistor built into the core, which allows especially cautious users to set their card shutdown threshold when overheating directly on the driver tab without additional manipulations with the video card BIOS. Naturally, all diagnostic utilities also do an excellent job of reading temperature readings. The card is supplied in a small box in corporate colors. The package contents are also typical for cards in this price range:

manual (in our case, in Russian, which is nice);
DVI to VGA adapter;
disk with driver and utilities.

The card demonstrated some ability to overclock to frequencies of 530/1000 without additional measures, which were used for testing.

Brief characteristics:

bus interface: PCI-E 16x;
memory interface: 128 bit;
memory type: 256 MB DDR3;
RAMDACs: 400 MHz;
chip frequency: 560 MHz;
memory frequency: 1400 MHz.

In our review, it plays the role of “the stove from which they dance.” This is a well-made, solid mid-range device that exactly replicates the NVIDIA reference design. The card was not overclocked.

Test results: performance comparison

We used the following tools:

3DMark03 (build 3.6.0) Basic Edition (Free, Limited)
3DMark05 (build 1.2.0) Basic Edition (Free, Limited)
3DMark06 (build 1.0.2) Basic Edition (Free, Limited)
DOOM3

3D Mark 2003
System characteristics	Points in the test
	12057
	10924
	13003

Quite expectedly, the most modern system (No. 3) is in the lead, system No. 1 is in second place due to a more powerful video card, and system No. 2 brings up the rear.

3D Mark 2005
System characteristics	Points in the test
System No. 1 (A64 236x10/GF6800GS AGP 500/1300)	5989
System No. 2 (A64 236x10/GF7600GS PCI -E 530/1000)	5048
System No. 3 (A64 X2 4600+/GF7600GT PCI-E)	5989

Surprisingly, but true - System No. 1 takes the lead, probably due to the wider memory bus of the 6800 GS. The 7600GT is not helped by the presence of a dual-core processor in System No. 3.

3D Mark 2006
System characteristics	Points in the test
System No. 1 (A64 236x10/GF6800GS AGP 500/1300)	2700
System No. 2 (A64 236x10/GF7600GS PCI -E 530/1000)	2645
System No. 3 (A64 X2 4600+/GF7600GT PCI-E)	3129

A more modern system restores the status quo. Pay attention to the minimal gap between System No. 1 and System No. 2.

Two video card settings were tested, the results are summarized in a table. Testing showed that here, too, the limiting factor was the “low power” of video cards.

DOOM3 (1280*1024, settings - high quality)
System characteristics	Points in the test
System No. 1 (A64 236x10/GF6800GS AGP 500/1300)	85,0
System No. 2 (A64 236x10/GF7600GS PCI -E 530/1000)	84,0
System No. 3 (A64 X2 4600+/GF7600GT PCI-E)	89,7

The situation is repeated: System No. 3 is again in the lead, but note that the gap from competitors is insignificant. System No. 2 and No. 1 again demonstrate almost identical results, thereby confirming the thesis about the “processor dependence” of the game. The result shown by the dual-core processor is typical for applications not optimized for it.

conclusions

Let's summarize. During testing, we came to the conclusion that upgrading to a more modern platform without changing the video card will not bring any special dividends. As our small research has shown, it is the capabilities of the video card that seriously influence the test results. Having come to this conclusion, we conscientiously combed the entire Internet and additionally found out that this situation is also typical for other systems, including the latest and most powerful Intel processor Core2 Duo and changes only when using video cards more high class and therefore higher cost, such as the 7900GS. Moreover, if, when switching to a new platform, you plan to stick with a CPU and GPU that are similar in performance, then there will be no fundamental changes for the better just by changing the type of connector and purchasing a motherboard with dual-channel memory mode. So the “old ladies”, having almost the same functionality as the latest motherboards at a significantly lower price, look quite decent, even compared to modern mid-range systems. Well, except that the lack of SATA 2 will probably poison someone’s life.

Thank you for providing the “stove from which we danced” to Alexander Kotrusov a.k.a. SAN.