AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+. Diagonal races
Typical roundup materials devoted to CPU tests are normally biased
towards two extremes. As a rule, on the moment of release of new chips
they test and compare top-end models, while putting an emphasis at
value chips in the "off-season". As regards the processors of the
pricing range in which the performance is no longer at the peak and the
price is affordable, the tests are normally not conducted because we
normally do them once respective specimen arrives at the test lab.
To be honest, AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ arrived at our test lab
over a month ago, and we've always been pressed for time to complete
the research to the end. That does not at all mean that the test
platform was idle in the dusty corner – on the contrary, it's
just the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in combination with the ASUS M2N32-SLI
DELUXE motherboard based on which we ran the first express roundup test
of performance of the platform powered by Windows XP SP2 and Windows
Vista RC2 (read the article Using
Windows Vista. Part III: installation, performance, licensing).
 Some might think of publishing an article on testing the
capabilities of CPU AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ right on the eve of year
2007 a bit belated, especially because we recently published a research
into dual-core
Athlon 64 X2 4800+. Perhaps, it is a bit late, but not late
for the urgency of the topic – CPUs like other components
turn cheaper with time, and thus become more affordable to the wide
groups of buyers. Moreover, the recent statement of AMD's top
management that DirectX 10 won't be topical until the second half of
2007 (made regarding the graphic cards), as well as lack of interest
towards support for the new generation DDR3 memory in desktop PCs based
on AMD chips at least no earlier than year 2008, suggests that if
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ eventually becomes a middling solution, in any case
the Socket AM2 platform its current form will be topical long enough.
Anyway, let's leave the analytical forecasts and reasoning and
move on to the practical side. And the first question which those who
wish to compare the performance of Athlon 64 X2 5000+ versus some
competitor by Intel will come up against is of course the choice of
reasonable criteria for comparison.
Let's be frank - things are really bad at that for
manufacturers of modern processors because there is almost no technical
parameter to be used for comparison of chips. Is it the L2 cache size,
its organization, the system bus speed (HT), and the principle of
interaction with memory, or finally the clock speed? No, no, and no,
because architectures have left us no chance for an adequate
comparison.
Then what is left is the good old and proven method - the
price. All in all, there does exist something used for reference at
Intel and AMD who present comparable prices for CPUs and keep them at a
certain level for some time. So let's see what return each dollar
invested into purchase of a processor at an approximately comparable
price will give, which is a bit more than 300 USD these days.
Proceeding from the price criterion, the closest "opponent" to Athlon
64 X2 5000+ is Intel Core 2 Duo E6600.
That's about all the methodology, and for the purity of
experiment let's mention how the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 came to the
test lab. All is very simple - for that we used a preliminarily
prepared test platform based on Core 2 Extreme X6800 – just
that one which took part in our first test of the new architecture
named Core
2 Duo processors: shock and awe.
Well, what do we get? Both Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Core 2 Duo
E6600 are built on the Conroe core, both offer 4 MB L2 cache, support
for FSB=1066 MHz and are based on Socket LGA775. The major distinction
between them, of course if we disregard the price, TDP and other
details which don't matter now, is the multiplier. Yes, it is just the
multiplier õ11 in Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2,93 GHz) which we changed to
õ9 (the chip allows for that) in order to emulate quite an adequate
model of the CPU Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4 GHz).
I suspect that such method might not be to the liking of some,
but let's not forget that this platform was to a larger extent used for
"test-driving" the new methodology of tests in which the possible
insignificant deviation from statistical error is not critical. Now
let's move on to describing the test benches and test conditions.
The testing procedure
CPU Athlon 64 X2 5000+ built on the version of working name
Windsor (Revision F), offers the core clock speed 2.60 GHz, 2 õ 128 K
L1 cache and 2 õ 512 K L2 cache. The chip supports the HyperTransport
bus with the clock speed 2 GHz and is equipped with an integrated
memory controller with support for 2-channel DDR2-800/667/533/400
memory modules.
Among the key specifications is the comparatively new 940-pin
Socket AM2, production at the lines following the 90-nm process
technology and using SOI, support for the AMD Virtualization (AMD-V,
formerly - Pacifica) and reduced power consumption as compared to the
predecessors: the TDP of just the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ chip is rated at
89 W. In the specifications of the chip, we should also mention 153.8
mln transistors, core area 183 mm, T.Case (Max) 55-70°, the
core supply voltage 1.30-1.35 V, ICC (Max) 66.2 A.
We tested Athlon 64 X2 5000+ on the base of a system with the
following components:
- Motherboard ASUS M2N32-SLI DELUXE of ATX form factor, based
on NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI chipset
- Memory – 2 x 512 MB Corsair CM2X512-8500 PC2-6400
800 MHz
- Graphic subsystem ATI X1900 XTX CrossFire Edition 512 MB
(Catalyst 6.14.10.6635)
- Operating system – Windows XP (5.1.2600), SP2,
DX9.0c
The comparable system for "emulation" of the Core 2 Duo E6600
chip had the following specifications:
- Motherboard Intel D975XBX, ATX form factor, Intel 975X
Express chipset with the most recent BIOS version (Rev. 1209)
- Memory – 2 x 512 MB Corsair CM2X512-8500 PC2-6400
800 MHz
- Graphic subsystem ATI X1900 XTX CrossFire Edition 512 MB
(Catalyst 6.14.10.6635)
- Operating system – Windows XP (5.1.2600), SP2,
DX9.0c
I must admit, the major task of that test was not only to try
the CPU in all possible ways at extreme settings and through the
maximum number of tests, but also testing with various benchmarks
including the debut "test-driving" of test suites new to our test lab.
As a result, some least interesting results - e.g. those related to
games, are not included into the review as having little visual
experience, although some were indeed added to the "armory" of our test
lab.
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
