Socket AM2 Platform: AMD introduces DDR2 SDRAM support. Processors How am2 differs from

The relatively long lifespan and good stability of "Method 5.0" led to the fact that we tested all the current processor families with it (and in some cases, not at all one or two representatives of each), and even there was time to do excursions into history :) In general, from a practical point of view, they are no less important than tests of new products - many of them still have old platforms and work, so the question "how many in grams" can be won with an upgrade? is not idle. And for an exact answer to it, you need to know both the performance of new processors and the level of outdated ones. You can, of course, take advantage of the results of tests conducted for a long time, but all of them refer to equally popular versions of software, and it tends to change. Therefore, new tests are needed. It is quite difficult to carry out which - and the processors themselves still need to be found, and other environment to ensure the requirements of the methodology to prepare. Therefore, for example, within the framework of the main version of the testing methodology, in principle, we cannot touch on Socket 754, since it is impossible to find 8 GB DDR SDRAM and a board on which all this will work. There is a similar problem with Socket 939, but it is possible to cope with the newer (but, in principle, equivalent to the previous one in performance) AM2 platform. What we, in fact, will do today, fortunately, we managed to find as many as five suitable processors. More precisely, seven, but two were too out of the general row in terms of performance, which is why they were considered last time. And today - the era of the late AM2 and even AM2 +.

Testbed configuration

Unfortunately, we didn’t come across a single single-core Athlon 64. More precisely, one was found in stocks, but its study showed that this is a model for Socket 939. It's a pity, since at first only such models were included in the mass segment - on At the time of the platform's announcement, the company estimated the minimum dual-core processor (which was 3800+) at as much as $ 303 (the reason is clear - there were still a few months before the release of Core 2 Duo, and Pentium D had lower performance than Athlon 64 X2). But we did find the legendary 3800+, and not even the ADA3800, but the ADO3800 - it cost $ 20 more, but had a TDP of only 65 W, which was cool enough for a dual-core model at that time.

Unfortunately, we failed to find any other junior "classic" 90 nm dual-core processors or any representatives of the 65 nm technical process. So, conclusions on the dual-core family will have to be made on the basis of the mentioned "initial" 3800+ and three models formally (since two of them appeared after this family had lost the status of maximum performance devices) of a high level: 5200+, 6000+ and FX- 62. Strictly speaking, one could do without the latter, since testing it will not bring us any exclusive information - the clock frequency is exactly in the middle between the other two participants. But we could not pass by the processor, which at the time of the announcement was on sale at a price of around 1250 (!) Dollars. A legend after all. Albeit greatly devalued over the past years, but once the processor occupied its price bar by right, being the most productive x86 solution on the market.

And for comparison, two models of subsequent generations - already Phenom. The first pancake is lumpy in the form of the Phenom X4 9500 and the breakthrough Phenom II X4 940. Again, the latter is not so interesting, since we tested the Phenom II line for AM3, and they differ only in the supported memory, but formally 940 is the best that has been done for AM2 +. In practice, on many boards with this socket, you can use more productive solutions, thanks to the backward compatibility of the two platforms, but the formal status is also a reason to get to know each other :)

As for the first Phenoms, we have a representative of the very first generation - with the so-called "TLB bug". Its discovery forced the company to switch to the corrected B3 stepping (such models can be easily distinguished by the fact that their number ends in "50"), and BIOS patches appeared to ensure stable operation of already sold processors. At one time, we tested one of the engineering Phenom samples with TLB-patch enabled and disabled and came to the conclusion that its use reduces performance by an average of 21% (in some programs - several times). Well, since this error did not always spoil the user's life with the instability of the system, many, naturally, preferred to disable this fix at their own peril and risk.

Unfortunately, when using modern software, this is already very difficult to do, unlike the days of Windows XP - Microsoft has built the bug fix directly into its oS... It started with SP1 for Windows Vista and, of course, migrated to Windows 7. In principle, there are ways to disable this "parking brake", but we did not do it, because most users do not. And from the point of view of testing processors in modern software such tweaks are not correct. But it's worth remembering about their capabilities, if someone still has to use a computer based on the first generation of Phenom (and, according to reviews, performance increases on models with the correct stepping), it's worth it. As well as the fact that simply disabling TLB-patch in Setup when working under modern operating systems of the Windows family does not affect anything (we did a quick check of this to make sure it is clear). Or, by the way, this situation can be considered as an extra reason not to rush to install a new OS on an old computer, which is already not too fast for it to have a desire to work with the most "fresh" versions of application software - better or " the old-fashioned way ”, or, nevertheless, start an upgrade.

In general, such is the set of subjects. It is strongly skewed in favor of the fastest models and does not cover many once popular branches on the Athlon family tree at all, but what we have managed to scrape together in the bottom sections, we will test it.

With whom to compare? We decided to take four processors from modern Intel products. Celeron G530T and G550 - have the same clock speed as Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 5200+, respectively (the second pair also has the same "lower" level cache, although Celeron has a common L3, while Athlon has a separate L2, but the number is the same). Pentium G860 is no longer the fastest Intel processor, at less than $ 100 after the G870, but exactly 3 GHz, like the 6000+. Well, for the sake of completeness, another energy-efficient processor, namely the Core i3-2120T, clocked at 2.6 GHz, since recently we compared it with the Core 2 Duo of the same time as the older Athlon 64 X2, and indeed a direct comparison of the equal-frequency G550, 2120T and 5200+ is extremely interesting and revealing. It is clear that all these models are a priori somewhat lower than the Phenom II X4, but we have already analyzed this family (albeit in a different design) in detail, and with modern (and not so) intel processors has also been compared many times.

And four more models from the AMD range. First, the A4-3400 and A6-3670K. The second, after the recent price cut, "lives" at the level of older Pentiums, and the first is comparable to Celeron. In addition, the FM1 platform is interesting to us because it offers the buyer a good level of integrated graphics - higher than the discrete of the heyday of AM2. Accordingly, if someone has not yet raised a hand to throw out the system unit five years ago, the cheaper FM1 can stimulate this process. An added convenience - both processors run at 2.7 GHz, which is exactly between the 5200+ and the FX-62. Also, two old Phenom IIs operating at a clock frequency of 3 GHz: X2 545 and X3 740 are asking for the list of subjects. From a practical point of view, of course, it's too late to remember them, but from a theoretical point of view, they will do.

A quick note about frequency random access memory - although officially all dual-core processors under AM2 support DDR2-800, for 5200+ and 6000+ the real memory frequencies are somewhat different from the theoretical ones: 746 and 752 MHz, respectively, which is due to the limited set of dividers (which we already mentioned last time). The difference from the standard mode, however, is not great, but it may have an effect somewhere in comparison with the FX-62, which operates in a "canonically correct way", since its frequency is divisible by 400 (the 3800+ also, but naturally, these "monsters »A priori not competitors). And all Phenoms (both the first and second generations) also support DDR2-1066, but only in a "one module per channel" configuration, which, for obvious reasons, does not suit us: the required "by the standard" for the methodology is 8 GB with two modules we failed to provide. In general, they are also trifles, but we focus on them to reduce the number of follow-up questions :)

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a certain number of groups, and we show on the diagrams the average result for the group of tests / applications (you can learn more about the testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points, for 100 points the performance of the reference is taken test system site sample 2011. It is based on the processor AMD Athlon II X4 620, and the amount of memory (8 GB) and the video card () are standard for all tests of the "main line" and can only be changed within the framework of special studies. Those who are interested in more detailed information, again, are traditionally offered to download a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are given both converted into points and in “natural” form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

Almost identical results of the three Phenom IIs once again show that these tests are unable to utilize more than two threads of computation. It would seem an ideal situation for older Athlon 64 X2 - high-frequency dual-core processors with relatively large and fast L2. But ... even the 6000+ lags behind not only the A4-3400 with a frequency of 2.7 GHz, but also the two GHz (!) Celeron G530T, and the results of the others in this situation can not be mentioned. In general, over the past years, processor architectures have made great strides forward (not all at once, but the overall progress is not bad), which cannot be ignored. There were, of course, very unsuccessful steps along this path, such as the first Phenom. The lion's share of the responsibility for the failure of the 9500 lies with the TLB patch, but even without this one cannot count on the high results of the first K10s - low-frequency models with a small (by modern standards) cache capacity, and even slow. And the kernels here, we repeat, are useless.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

They are useful in these subtests, but the Phenom X4 9500 still managed to outperform only a part of the dual-core processors, and even then not the fastest ones. The reason is simple - low frequency... And cache memory is also important for these tasks. Although it is clear that even a carcass, even a stuffed animal these processors had to be produced (at least, taking into account such loads), since the Athlon 64 X2 is even slower, and AMD had no other processors then. Later, the Phenom II X4 turned out to be an excellent correction of errors, so they are still relevant in the quad-core modification. By the way - the fastest processors for FM1 (Athlon II X4 651 and A8-3870K) in this group demonstrate the result of 124 points, that is, practically the same as became available to AM2 + “holders” almost four years ago. Not so bad, in general :) Well, if, of course, you don't stress too much on the fact that the Core i7-920, which appeared at the same time at a fairly close price, is capable of 182 points.

Packing and unpacking

A very indicative group of tests. First, the terrible results of the Phenom X4 9500 were predetermined: at one time, the inclusion of a patch for the TLB slowed down the engineering sample three times. However, even without it, Phenom at 2.6 GHz (and not 2.2 as here) only slightly outperformed Athlon 64 X2 6000+, so we can even say that over the past years its performance has improved slightly, the reason for which is the support for multithreading newer versions of 7-Zip. But it also did not allow (this is the second observation) Phenom II X4 940 to outrun at least the triple-core Phenom II X3 740, which has a higher cache memory frequency and works with faster DDR3 RAM. The third curious moment is that Athlon 64 X2 6000+ gains exactly 100 points: like the reference Athlon II X4 620 operating at a lower frequency. But Celeron and others like them cannot reach the same frequency. And the A4-3400 (2.7 GHz, 2х512 KB L2) is faster than the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2.6 GHz, 2х1024 KB L2).

Well, and one more curious result (albeit a little from another opera): Core i3-2120T is approximately equal to Phenom II X3 740. Although the second has twice the capacity of L3, the frequency is almost 15% higher, and there are three cores, which, other things being equal still better than two cores with Hyper-Threading support.

Audio encoding

Cache is unimportant - pure mathematics, so the Phenom X4 9500 managed to demonstrate relatively good (within the framework of this article, of course) results: it bypassed all processors we took for comparison with support for a smaller number of computation threads, and the Core i3-2120T operating at a higher frequency not radically faster. However, the dual-core Pentium G860 is not much slower at all, and it also managed to overtake the equal-frequency triple-core Phenom II X3 740. Apparently, it is for this reason that "classic" tri-core processors have died for a long time (three-module FX are a slightly different story). Athlon 64 X2 6000+ also managed to outperform Celeron G530T and A4-3400: new instruction sets and other improvements of modern architectures are not involved in these subtests, so the high frequency saved it. Although, of course, if you remember that it is one and a half times higher than that of the 530T ... But let's not talk about sad things - there is more than enough of it already. In particular, the fact that all other Athlon 64s, including the once legendary FX-62, are for obvious reasons even slower. And 3800+ is only slightly faster than modern single-core models (such as those equipped with HT support for Celeron G460 / G465), despite the fact that there is no alternative to multi-core for this group of tests.

Compilation

For once, the FX-62 managed to bypass both the Celeron G530T and the A4-3400 - a Pyrrhic one, but a victory. Anyway, compared to other groups of tests. Another thing worth paying attention to is that the results of the FX-62 are closer to 6000+ than to 5200+, although in terms of core frequency it is exactly in the middle between them - the features of the memory controller of the K8 line under such a load are of considerable importance. Accordingly, the defeat of the Phenom X4 9500 was predetermined - the TLB patch “kills” the L3 performance so much that only the presence of four cores allowed this processor to overtake the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and even almost catch up with the Celeron G550. Well, we also had no doubt that the Phenom II X4 940 would be the best of all the test participants - the frequency is high (the rest are either the same or slower), four full-fledged cores and 6 MiB L3 speak for themselves.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

But here the benefit of multithreading is small, so that 940 only slightly outperformed 545, but lagged behind 740. However, this is also a good result, albeit suitable only for in-house competition - professional packages have a certain "pro-Intel" essence, and this is nowhere do not get away. But AMD obviously did not stand still - let A4-3400 outperform Celeron, but its “specific” (per unit clock frequency) advantage over Athlon 64 X2 is about 20%.

Raster graphics

Some of the tests are multi-threaded, some are not, so the Phenom II X3 from AMD products already look quite sufficient for solving such problems: the 940 was only slightly faster than the 740 due to slow memory and lower cache frequencies, and the A6-3670K hangs on the same level due to the complete absence of the latter and lower clock frequency. But, generally speaking, high-frequency Celeron and Pentium look the best here, and the low-frequency ones are not bad either. The "old" AMD processors cannot be saved by either the frequency or the number of cores - Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which has become usual, lags behind the A4-3400.

Vector graphics

As we have already established, these programs are undemanding to the number of computation threads, but their performance depends on the cache memory, so it is not surprising that three equal-frequency Phenom IIs showed similar results with a small loss of 940 - there the L3 frequency is 200 MHz lower ... But this is just the level of Sandy Bridge with a frequency of 2.6 GHz (i3 is slightly faster than Celeron just due to the "extra" megabyte of cache), and one of the best Athlon 64 X2 managed to outperform only A4-3400 and 2 GHz Celeron. The rest of the line is even slower, and for the Phenom X4 9500 such a load promises an inglorious defeat - the core frequency is low, and this is not the first time that the TLB patch has a disgusting effect on the cache memory performance. However, it is obvious that without it we would have gotten the result only slightly higher than that of Athlon 64 X2 3800+, which is clearly not enough to compete with modern processors.

Video encoding

The Phenom X4 9500 has once again managed to outrun some relatively modern dual-core processors: the cache does not bother it much here, but there are four cores. But slow. Athlon 64 X2 cannot suffer from a "TLB bug" for obvious reasons, so this error is also fixed, but their cores are just as slow in architecture, and there are only two of them. And even the frequency doesn't help much. The results of Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and 6000+ are especially indicative - they are almost twice inferior to the equal-frequency Celeron G530T and Pentium G860. And the 5200+ is one third slower than the A4-3400 with a comparable clock speed. In general, big things are seen at a distance - only a little over six years ago there was simply no line better than Athlon 64 X2 on the market, and now it is simply unable to compete even with budget models from both AMD and Intel. The Phenom II X4 940 is capable of this with ease, but this is a much newer processor, and its brothers are now in the budget sector. Phenom II X4 955, for example, the company has been shipping in bulk at $ 81 since September, but what makes it different from the 940? Only support for DDR3 and +200 MHz memory for cores and L3. By the way, we recall that at the time of the announcement, the recommended price of 940 was neither more nor less, and 275 full-weight dollars - processors are quickly devalued in the modern world :)

Office software

The overwhelming majority of tests in this group are single-threaded, and they do not use intensive improvements of modern architectures, so Athlon 64 X2 is quite enough for such an application. Unless, of course, electricity costs are embarrassing - 6000+ traditionally lagged behind both the G530T and A4-3400, and these processors do not require a hundred watts at all. It is clear that the "oldies" are also not fully loaded with such work, so they will cost a few dozen, but "a few" - in their case, more. And also some video will be needed additionally. But in general - enough for work. Which is quite consistent with the fact that many people in offices still use various Celerons or Semprons, and even slower than we recently tested. Accordingly, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ will be at least as good, and much better when using some gluttonous antivirus :)

Java

The Phenom X4 9500 has once again pulled out in full, since there are still four cores, and the cache memory and its performance do not really matter here, but in his case, “in full” means just a result equal to the Celeron G550. However, taking into account the fact that everything above, as a rule, was much worse, and such a victory over oneself (and over the patches) commands respect. What about the other members? As usual: Athlon 64 X2 are unsuccessfully trying to catch up with at least some modern budget processor, and Phenom II X4 demonstrates that it can be considered as such :)

Games

There was a time when Athlon 64 (not even X2) was the best game processors... Now, let's face it, even the Phenom II X4 and lower-end Core i3s can only apply for this position by pulling, not to mention dual-core models. Modern dual-core models. And not the ancient ones, to which laptop processors can be considered competitors only in the terminology of Russian tenders :) As for the Phenom X4 9500, we better abstain - just as in the house of a hanged man it is not customary to talk about a rope, and in comments to the results of one of the most "cache-loving" bands don't think about "TLB Martyrs".

Multi-tasking environment

By the way, even here this founder of multi-core aMD processors failed to overtake earlier dual-core models of the same manufacturer - the last Chinese warning to those who like to buy "cores for the sake of perspective" without regard to what kind of cores they are. Otherwise, everything is the same as usual - Athlon 64 X2 are unable to cope with at least a 2 GHz Celeron or dual-core Llano (by the way, the younger Athlon II X2 have the same performance as A4), and the Phenom II X4 940 is just a Phenom II X4 ... Not a bad processor for about a hundred dollars, even if at one time cost almost three hundred - devaluation, sir.

Total

In the end, we have what was expected - a hodgepodge of one-, two- and multi-threaded tests (which is, in fact, an exact projection of modern software; including the one that is difficult to benchmark, and, therefore, in test methods just as badly fits) did best processor for Socket AM2 + approximately equal to the Pentium equivalent. Two conclusions follow from this - good and bad. The first is due to the fact that the compatibility of this platform with AM3 is almost complete - unlike owners of systems based on LGA775, owners of a good motherboard with AM2 + and a sufficient amount of DDR2 memory can upgrade their computer to a very good level. Not top-end, of course, but the Phenom II X6 1100T has a "weighted average" performance of 159 points, and the Phenom II X4 980 - 143 points. Minus the inevitable 5% (or so) for slower memory - we get somewhere between 150 and 135 points. And the maximum for LGA775 is 132 points. And even then - only if you are lucky to find a Core 2 Quad Q9650 somewhere on the secondary market for a reasonable price, since "during its lifetime" it never dropped below $ 316 in bulk, and if it also works on the existing board: despite the name the same socket, LGA775 is four limited-compatible platforms (however, problems with the oldest AM2 boards are also possible). AMD, on the other hand, continues to sell both 980 and 1100T at $ 163 and $ 198 respectively. To a certain extent, it is a little expensive, but if there is a desire to "spur" the system by replacing only the processor, such costs may well turn out to be optimal (in any case, a new set of Core i5, motherboards with LGA1155 and memory will cost much more).

And now the bad news, which directly follows from the good news - it makes no sense to use a board with AM2 + in conjunction with a processor for AM2 or AM2 +. And it is not even necessary to look closely at the aforementioned top models for AM3 - apart from them, AMD has a lot more to offer. And not only among new processors, but also among the rest of the retail stores or in the secondary market. Where to buy some Athlon II X3 or even X4 can be very cheap - since now the manufacturer values \u200b\u200bthe younger Phenom II X4 only at $ 80-90. Is there any reason? Yes there is. Even the best Athlon 64 X2, as we have seen today, are inferior to the A4-3400, and this processor is approximately equal to the Athlon II X2 215. Note that the best X2 are also. But replacing, for example, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ with the long-discontinued Athlon II X4 630 will simply double the average performance.

It is clear that all these considerations are justified only if the available motherboard supports processors for AM3: otherwise it is easier to change the platform (to LGA1155, FM1 or FM2 - without much difference). And it is even more clear that it makes sense to bother with them only when the performance of the existing computer is no longer enough. After all, many people still somehow use Pentium 4, Athlon XP or Celeron and Sempron there (and even slower than we recently tested). Accordingly, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ will seem to them to be something no less reactive than the famous Pink Panther (after all, even within the framework of AM2 it is 53 points against 30 for Sempron 3000+), and the owner of such will be a man taken to heaven in flesh, like one of the biblical prophets :) But just that.

Despite the fact that in summer 2006 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ was a dream (and Athlon 64 FX-62 was a pipe dream) of many users, today you can only look at their results with a smile or nostalgic sadness. Moreover, the devaluation process began in the same 2006 - the FX-62 was the "king of the hill" only for a quarter, after which it lost not even the top ones, but only close to that Core 2 Duo (over the past years, the ratio, by the way, has not actually changed: according to the last method, the FX-62 scored 73 points, and the E6600, above which there were also E6700 and X6800, all 77). Well, in the future, both companies went far ahead. Let's emphasize both.

Of course, Intel's success looks more prominent: the Celeron G530T has a frequency of only 2 GHz and a TDP of 35 W (together with graphics core). But the A4-3400 overtakes the same oldies to the same extent. Yes, of course, it requires 2.7 GHz for this (that is, the specific performance is about a third lower than that of the "breeches"), and the heat pack is already 65 W, but A4 has a rich inner world of graphics more powerful. Moreover, both of these processors are not novelties: they were announced last year and are already giving way to faster "changers" on the shelves, while AMD has adopted a new architecture. It caused a lot of criticism at the start, however, at least everything was done without such a scandal that accompanied the release of the first Phenom. Moreover, it should be noted that even if there were no notorious "TLB-bug" and the need to fix it, Phenom X4 still could not count on high results. Simply because even the best model in the line with the index 9950 (which the company did not get right away) worked only at 2.6 GHz. The closest analogue from modern line - A6-3650 with the same frequency. And, by the way, the same capacity of the cache memory, despite the L3 in the first Phenoms - in total both there and there are 4 MiB each. Let the A6 have separate, but full-speed, while the Phenom had only L2.

Well, how does the performance of the "old" and "new" ones compare? aMD cores, today's testing showed well - the "extra" 100 MHz and the increased cache still did not prevent the FX-62 from lagging behind the A4-3400 by almost 10%. Accordingly, a similar picture would be when comparing Phenom X4 9950 with A6-3650. The latter has a result of 110 points, that is, the best that 9950 - 100 points could count on. Reference. Which are typical for Athlon II X4 620 (by the way, with the same frequency of 2.6 GHz; and we have already observed something close) or ... Celeron G550 / G555 :) What can we say about the younger representatives of the line, where the frequencies are also low ? Suppose, without problems with the TLB, the 9500 would have caught up with the FX-62 (at one time our testing showed that the patch reduces the overall performance by about 21%) - what would that change? Nothing already!

In general, the best that can be said about the Agena processors are debug versions of the Stars family, by working on which (and improving the technical process, of course) we managed to move to a really successful Deneb, which is still relevant. They did not have any other advantages. Unlike FX, where it immediately became possible to assess not only the disadvantages, but also the advantages. And how AMD is able to work on errors is clearly seen in the example of the first and second generation Phenom. Well - there is nothing left before the release of Piledriver, so we cross our fingers and wait for similar results :)

We thank the company, "" and « »
for help in completing test benches

Then for an initial assessment, you can use the table:

What is SocketAM4 and what is it compatible with?
SocketAM4 - AMD processor socket for high-performance processors with Zen microarchitecture ( trademark Ryzen) and beyond. Processors with this socket have 1331 pins, support DDR4 memory, and contain up to 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. Processors with Socket AM3 + / FM2 + are not physically compatible with motherboards AM4, in addition, the mounting of the processor cooling system has changed, and a new cooler is required for the new socket. Both high-performance processors without integrated video and APUs with integrated graphics are available for Socket AM4.

What frequencies does AMD Ryzen RAM work at?
As you know, AMD Ryzen processors work with DDR4 memory and have an integrated dual channel memory controller. Depending on the number of modules per channel and memory ranks, the memory frequency differs. This situation is not new - in server systems it has become a problem at all, so they came up with ones that, other things being equal, work faster than "regular" RDIMM memory modules.
In any case, specifically AMD Ryzen processors work with RAM as follows:

Will SocketAM4 processors be compatible with SocketAM3 + boards?
Will not. AM4 processors are physically and electrically incompatible with legacy sockets.

What is SocketAM3 + and what is it compatible with?
, mechanically and electrically compatible with SocketAM3 (despite a slightly larger number of contacts - 942, it can also be called SocketAM3b in some sources), but designed to support new AMD processors on the Zambezi core based on Bulldozer architecture like AMD FX 8150. All old ones are also supported., and, of course, such boards only work with and are compatible with the previous ones.

Will SocketAM3 + processors be compatible with
Judging by all the signs, they won't. (For example, due to the larger diameter of the processor legs.) A board based on the old chipset that will be able to support SocketAM3 + processors after bIOS updates, can be distinguished by the characteristic black color of the socket, but in such cards some of the functionality related to energy saving and monitoring may be lost. In the future, this information can be clarified.

What is SocketAM3 and what is it compatible with?
SocketAM3 is a further development of SocketAM2 +, its main difference lies in the support of DDR-III memory by motherboards and processors with this type of socket.
have a memory controller that supports both DDR-II and DDR-III, so they can work in SocketAM2 + motherboards (the performance of a particular processor in a particular motherboard must be checked on the CPU Support List on the motherboard manufacturer's website), but the opposite situation is impossible, SocketAM2 and SocketAM2 + processors are not working.

What types of memory do SocketAM3 boards support?
- Only DDR-III with frequencies from 800 to 1333 MHz, both unbuffered ("normal"), and with ECC, i.e. exactly the same memory used by motherboards with LGA1155, LGA1156 and LGA1366 sockets for.
With currently produced SocketAM3 processors, PC10600 memory can operate at the passport frequency of 1333 MHz only if one module is installed per channel, and when two modules are installed on each channel of the memory controller (when there are three or four memory modules in total) their frequency is forcibly reduced up to 1066MHz.
Registered memory is not supported, ECC memory (without Registered!) Is supported only by Phenom II processors for this socket.
The memory organization is the same as in Socket939 / 940 / AM2 / 1156, i.e. dual-channel, and to achieve optimal performance, it is necessary to install two or four (preferably identical in pairs) memory modules in accordance with the instructions for the motherboard.

What is SocketAM2 +, and how does it differ from just AM2?
SocketAM2 + is an upgraded version of SocketAM2 that features HyperTransport 3.0 support up to 2.6GHz, as well as improved power supply circuits.
As a rule (exceptions are extremely rare and are associated with the individual characteristics of specific motherboards), absolutely all SocketAM2 processors work perfectly in all SocketAM2 + motherboards. The situation with backward compatibility is worse, not all SocketAM2 motherboards support SocketAM2 + processors (for each case, check the compatibility on the motherboard manufacturer's website), secondly, lowering the HyperTransport frequency leads to a noticeable performance drop compared to the "native" SocketAM2 + motherboard.
Also, when using Phenom SoсketAM2 + processors, the boards allow using DDR-II memory of the PC-8500 type at the rated frequency without overclocking (when installed one module per channel).

What is Socket AM2?
– new connector for AMD "desktop" processors working with dual channel memory type DDR-II, replacement for Socket939.

How many legs does it have?
- 940, but it is in no way compatible with Socket940 itself (the legs are located differently), that's why it was named Socket AM2. (Its "descendants" SocketAM2 + and SocketAM3 also have 940 contacts)

Which ones are and will be produced for the new connector?
- Athlon64 (single-core, production will be discontinued in 2007), Athlon64 X2, Athlon64 FX (in fact, older versions of Athlon64 X2), Sempron (Athlon64 with a reduced L2 cache), corresponding Opterons (in fact, Athlon64 X2 with ECC support ( not Registered!) memory)

What types of memory are supported by SocketAM2 boards?
- Only DDR-II with frequencies from 400 to 800MHz, specifically - PC4200 (533MHz), PC5300 (667MHz), PC6400 (800MHz), i.e. absolutely the same memory used by motherboards with LGA775 socket on Intel 945/955/965 chipsets. Registered memory is not supported, ECC memory (without Registered!) Is only supported by Opteron processors for this socket.
The memory organization is the same as in Socket939 / 940, i.e. dual-channel, and to achieve optimal performance, it is necessary to install two or four (preferably identical in pairs) memory modules in accordance with the instructions for the motherboard.
Installation of high-speed memory modules such as PC6400, or modules with reduced timings is justified only in the case of older models of dual-core processors - with single-core Athlon64 and Sempron, installing a faster memory does not affect the overall system performance.

Do the Socket AM2 processor versions differ from their Socket939 counterparts in anything other than the type of supported memory?
- No, no fundamental differences were found for users, moreover, the integral performance of systems with equal-rated and equal-frequency processors, but working with DDR-II and DDR memory, respectively, is generally about the same. But for Socket AM2 processors are and will be released, in principle, absent in the Socket939 version, for example - Athlon64 FX62, Athlon64 X2 5200+, etc. SocketAM2 processors also support AMD Virtualization ("Pacifica") virtualization technology.

Will there be any new processor models for Socket939?
- No, moreover, the production of both motherboards and processors for this connector has already been discontinued.

What chipsets are used in Socket AM2 boards?
- The same as in Socket754 / Socket939, there is no fundamental difference between the sockets from the point of view of the chipset. But on the new generation of chipsets for AMD processors, boards with old connectors will no longer be produced.

What coolers can be used with SocketAM2 processors?
- Coolers designed for Socket754 / Socket939 / Socket940 are suitable if they are attached by the plastic teeth of the fasteners installed on the motherboard, and previously released coolers that have their own fasteners to the motherboard cannot be attached to socket AM2 due to the change in the number and location of fasteners holes. To use such coolers, you need to purchase their upgraded version or (possibly!) A separate mounting kit.
The CPU cooler power connector of Socket AM2 motherboards is completely similar to the 4-pin PWM used in LGA775 motherboards and is compatible with old 3-pin connectors.

What PSUs can be used with Socket AM2 boards?
- The same as with Socket939 / PCI Express boards, i.e. ATX 24 + 4, and in most cases - and 20 + 4 if there is sufficient power reserve in the + 12V circuit.

In a very difficult situation in 2006, AMD announced a connector for the AM2 CPU. Processors for sockets 754 and 939 at that time completely exhausted themselves and could not show a sufficient level of performance. As a result, it was necessary to offer something new with a higher performance for a worthy answer to the eternal competitor in the person of Intel Corporation.

How and why did this computing platform come about?

In 2006 on the market personal computers sales of a new type of RAM called DDR2 started. At that time, AMD's 754 and 939 CPU slots were designed to use the outdated, but most common type of RAM - DDR.

As a result, the last socket was redesigned and became known as AM2. Processors for this socket received a 30% performance increase over their predecessors. The main factor that allowed this to increase productivity was the increased throughput RAM.

Sockets up to AM2. Subsequent processor connectors

As noted earlier, sockets 754 and 939 can be considered the predecessors for this processor socket. Moreover, from the standpoint of organizing the functioning of RAM, the second of them was closer to the hero of this review, which also had a 2-channel RAM controller. But also server socket 940 can be attributed to the predecessors of AM2. The processors in this case had an identical organization of the RAM subsystem and a similar number of contacts, which was equal to 940 pieces.

In one form or another AM2 existed until 2009. At this time, instead of him and its updated version in the person of AM2 +, a new processor socket AM3 was released, the key innovation of which was the use of a new modification of RAM - DDR3. Physically, AM2 and AM3 are compatible with each other. Moreover, even the AM2 + CPU can be installed in the AM3. But the reverse use of the CPU is unacceptable due to the incompatibility of microprocessor controllers of RAM.

Models of central processing units for AM2

Socket AM2 were targeted at the following segments of the PC market:

• The Septron line products made it possible to assemble budget system units. These CPUs had only one compute module and a two-level cache. Technologically, these semiconductor solutions were produced at 90 nm (the CPU frequency range was limited to 1.6-2.2 GHz) and 65 nm (1.9-2.3 GHz). These chips had a very, very democratic cost and an acceptable level of performance for solving office tasks, and it is for these two reasons that they could often be found in the budget segment of the PC.
• All Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 CPUs belonged to the middle segment. The level of performance in this case was ensured by an increase in the size of the cache memory, higher clock frequencies, and even the presence of 2 computational modules at once (processors with the X2 prefix).

• The most productive products of this platform were the Phenom family chips. They could include 2, 3 or even 4 computing units. Also, the amount of cache memory has been significantly increased.
• Socket AM2 was aimed at creating entry-level servers. Processors of the Opteron family could also be installed in it. They were available in 2 modifications: with 2 computational modules (based on Athlon 64 X2 CPU and labeled 12XX) and with 4 cores (in this case, Phenom chips were the prototype, and such products were already designated 135X).

Chipsets for this platform

AMD AM2 processors could be used in combination with motherboards based on the following AMD chipsets:

• The 790FX provided the maximum level of functionality. It allowed connecting 4 video cards at once in 8X mode or 2 in 16X mode.
• The niche of mid-range products was occupied by the 780E, 785E and 790X / GX. They allowed installing 2 graphics accelerators in 8X mode or 1 in 16X mode. Also, solutions based on 790GX were equipped with an integrated video adapter Radeon 3100.
• Solutions based on 785G, 785G / V and 770 were even lower on the level of functionality. They allowed using only 1 discrete graphics accelerator.

Random access memory and its controller

Socket AM2 was focused on the installation of the newest DDR2 modules at that time. Processors, as noted earlier, due to this important innovation, received an additional 30% performance. As in the case of the 940, the RAM controller was integrated into the central processing unit... This engineering approach improves performance with the RAM subsystem, but limits the number of RAM module types supported by the CPU.

The appearance in the future of new modifications of the strips leads to the fact that the architecture of the RAM controller needs to be reworked. It is for this reason that an intermediate solution AM2 + appeared between AM2 and AM3 +. It did not receive any fundamental differences from its predecessor, and the only difference was that support for DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 RAM modules was added. In its pure form, AM2 could fully work with DDR2-400, DDR2-533 and DDR2-667. It is possible to install faster RAM modules in such a PC, but in this case their performance was automatically reduced to the level of DDR2-667, and there was no particular benefit from using a faster RAM.

The current situation with this platform

Socket AM2 is completely out of date. Processors and motherboards for this platform can still be found in new condition in warehouses. But considering this connector as a basis even for assembling the most budget PC is not recommended: the price difference with the most affordable entry-level processor solutions of more recent sockets is insignificant, but the difference in performance will be noticeable.

Therefore, it is possible to use such components in the case when the PC based on AM2 is out of order, and it must be urgently restored with minimal costs.

Let's sum up

Iconic in 2006 for the world computer technology became the socket output for installing the AM2 CPU. In this case, the processors received a very solid increase in performance and made it possible to solve more complex problems. But now products based on this platform are outdated, and consider them as a basis for building a new system unit Not recommended.