AMD ATHLON 64 X2 5000+ BRISBANE REVIEW BENCHMARK AND OVERCLOCKING
Posted:2007-01-10 By cpu review Number of View:103241
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 5000+ BRISBANE REVIEW BENCHMARK AND OVERCLOCKING By :cpu review Posted:2007-01-10 xtreview is your : Video card - cpu - memory - Hard drive - power supply unit source  When AMD launched last May its platform AM2, the firm of SunnyVale also benefitted from the launch of its first processors Energy Efficient. Profiting from initials EE, these Athlon 64 was distinguished from other models range by thermal type (or TDP) witch was lower .   In the end of this year , the arrival of first processors AMD profiting from 65 Nm, makes possible to AMD to give on front its range of processors Energy Efficient, but not as clearly as he could have wished . the four new models Athlon 64 X2 made in 65nm. With four new processors made in 65 Nm and integrating the new Brisbane core, AMD tries to prove that its existance vs INTEL  Core 2 Duo. AMD passes to the 65nm with four new models… to start!     AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ EE AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ EE AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ EE AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE Smoothness of engraving 65nm 65nm 65nm 65nm L2 2x 512 KB 2x 512 KB 2x 512 KB 2x 512 KB Frequency 2,1 GHz 2,3 GHz 2,5 GHz 2,6 GHz Wrap thermal (TDP) 65 Watts 65 Watts 65 Watts 65 Watts Arrival of Brisbane core With regard to the core even processor, AMD gives a successor in the middle Windsor which currently animates Athlon 64 X2 AM2 with the Brisbane coree. the new, beautiful, this core introduces some significant changes to start with a new management of the multiplying coefficients. Thus, the Brisbane processors are not limited any more to the only oldcoefficients and Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 65 Nm will employ a multiplying coefficient of 11,5x against 11x for the same processor in 90 Nm. In fact, this model has a frequency of 100 MHz higher than its equivalent in 90 Nm, but it compensates by quantity lower cache memory divided by two (2x 512 KB instead 2x 1 Mb). It will be noted that usually AMD compensated with the Rating of  memory in the second level by a stage frequency of 200 MHz: So  with the processors 65 Nm there is no model equipped with 2x 1 MB L2 cache. The fault certainly with the problems of release… On the four new processors 65 Nm launched by AMD, only the model 5000+ preserve characteristics identical to its equivalent in 90 Nm. Another not less valuable change by AMD: the latency times for memory . According to our tests, the latency time of the L1 remains identical to that in processors 90 Nm but the latency of the memory in the second level was increased ! Although AMD tries to minimize the impact of increase in the latency , evoking in the worst case degradation of 1% in the performances, this change would have in impact in applications which depend particularly on memory acess time. Here the latency times of the memory raised under CPU-Z:   Hide L1 Hide l2 INTEL Core 2 Duo E6700 3 14 AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Windsor 90 Nm 3 14 AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Brisbane 65nm 3 20 The founder justifies his choice by explaining that the increase in the latency times should in the long term result in to increase in the memory in the seconde level. First picture is for the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 90 Nm, Seconde one the same model in 65 Nm: the latency times are degraded…   Until now, INTEL was the only manufacturer of processors using 65 Nm and this since… Pentium D! On its side, AMD had remained faithful to 90 Nm even if the situation became hard getting in the limit of their processors. So the passage to smoothness lower technical  process makes possible to the  founder to increase his production. A processor more smoothness occupies less place on silicon wafer . One can thus put more processors in A wafer. In facts, the core of new Athlon 64 X2 65 Nm measures a little more than 126 mm ² against 183 mm ² for its predecessor. Other favors generally related to the improvement of the process : are less heating and lower power consumption  . AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE and electric consumption AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE Brisbane - 65nm The supply voltage of this processor lies between 1,25 and 1,35 volts whereas its predecessor 90 Nm posted a tension varying between 1,3 and 1,35 volts. With regard to heating, we could see a rather moderate heating in full load: 52 °C. The total electric consumption of our system AMD benefits from the passage in the middle Brisbane since it drops significantly as shown in the table below:   Total consumption of the system Recorded temperature AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE (90nm) 198w 49c AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE (90nm) 224 watts 62c AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE (65nm) 206 watts 52c Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 183 watts 34.5c INTEL Core 2 Duo E6600 199 watts 36c At equal frequency we observes an electric consumption of 18 Watts less with Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Brisbane, in 65 Nm vs model 90 Nm containing Windsor core. But comparing this consumption with Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE, a processor however made in 90 Nm but benefitting from Energy Efficient label, the passage to the 65 Nm does not seem really improvmement in the side of electric consumption. Admittedly there is a difference of 200 MHz between Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE and the model 5000+ EE, but the consumption raised on the two platforms is so close that one wonders whether the 65 Nm has at all an impact on this parameter… Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE Brisbane seen by CPU-Z Side operating temperatures, the processor core is more reasonable  since our 65 Nm showed only 52° C in full load against 62° C for its equivalent 90 Nm. We record here temperature of CPU in the BIOS after long toture torture test under Prime95. Overclocking We of course want to check the behavior of new processors AMD in 65 Nm when it is a question of overclocking. For that we had recourse to the same platform as in benchmarks, The motherboard Asus m2 N32-SLI Deluxe. DDR2 Corsair 6400 at the price of a reduction in the memory ratio to go up with high frequency. We have without too much effort reached the 3 GHz, or more exactly 3025 MHz with a bus of 275 MHz and with the help of an adjustment of the multiplying coefficient: 11x against 13x default. We also took care to arrange the various parameters offered by BIOS like the supply voltages processor and memory, but also the chipset voltage as well as the multiplying coefficient of the bus HyperTransport in order to return the system bootable. Beyond, 3 GHz and with our standard cooling we alas could not obtain a stable system. In comparison, with old Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 90 Nm we have about the same results in overclocking what tends to indicate that the 65 Nm does not improve really the difficult task of overclocker K8 architecture already pushed to its limit. Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE 65nm here overclocked to 3 GHz Physically identical to its pars, Athlon 64 X2 is a processor dual core being presented at the format Socket AM2. It is thus made in 65 Nm and account according to AMD a little more than 153 million transistors. With a coefficient of 11x and a frequency operation 2,6 GHz, the chip has 2x 512 KB in the second level and 2x 128 KB L1 cache in each core. Our test processor was provided with the stepping G1 Brisbane core, stepping compatible with a great number of motherboard even if a BIOS update can sometimes be necessary. Note however that our m2 N32-SLI Deluxe started perfectly with this Athlon 64 X2 65nm in spite of its rather old BIOS. AMD made state of a TDP of 65 Watts maximum what remains very correct, even if the TDP of first Athlon 64 X2 EE is identical. The passage to the 65 Nm thus does not make possible to improve this parameter, unless the founder is not particularly preserving in the data which it communicates. To test the performances of the last baby AMD we had recourse to the platform whose detail appears below: Motherboard Asus m2 N32-SLI Deluxe (BIOS 0811), 2x 1 GIG Corsair Twin2X 6400C3, Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, 2x hard Disks Western DIGITAL Raptor 150 GIG Serial-ATA The system functioned naturally under Windows XP Professionnel Service Pack 2 with the last drivers and BIOS available to the date of test. On this same motherboard we tested Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in 90 Nm, Windsor, in order to compare its performances with its successor, X2 5000+ EE this time made in 65nm. we will test, always on the same system, Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE, in its version 90 Nm. We will oppose all this small world to Core 2 Duo INTEL who were tested on the following platform: Motherboard Asus P5W-DH Deluxe (BIOS 1707) 2x 1 Gig Corsair Twin2X 6400C3, Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, 2x hard Disks Western DIGITAL Raptor 150 Gig Serial-ATA Athlon 64 X2 will be confronted here with Core 2 Duo E6300 (1,86 GHz), E6400 (2,13 GHz) but also with Core 2 Duo E6600 (2,4 GHz). 3DMark 06 - CPU - v1.1.0 we starts our test with 3DMark 06 and his processor test . Recently was updated in version 1.1.0, 3DMark 06 gives the first place to Core 2 Duo E6600. Athlon 64 X2 5000+ finishes in second position and as one could fear it the model made in 90 Nm witch is faster than his successor in 65 Nm. However, the difference between the two X2 5000+ remains tiny here. Vs Core 2 Duo E6400, Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Brisbane (65 Nm) is faster by 6%. PCMark 05 - CPU - v1.2.0 Always signed FutureMark, the processor test of PCMark 05 gives Core 2 Duo E6600 the lead. our Core 2 Duo E6400 get the second place in front of the last-born of AMD. Under 3DMark 06, Core 2 Duo E6600 was only 5% fasterl than Athlon 64 X2 5000+, but under PCMark 05 the difference reaches 15%! As for our two Athlon 64 X2 5000+, PCMark 05 confirms the loss of performance related to the passage in 65 Nm: by about 1%. PCMark 05 - Memory - v1.2.0 Centered exclusively on the memory, the test of the same PCMark 05 gives the advantage to Core 2 Duo E6600. If until now our two Athlon 64 X2 5000+ posted relatively close in performances! The model made in 65 Nm falls in bottom of classification, just in front of Core 2 Duo E6300 with performances in fall of 9% at equal frequency! Blow, Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE is shown more powerful than the 5000+ 65 Nm which makes here less although than Core 2 Duo E6400. Sandra Xi - Processor Test SiSoft Sandra continuous to move after the version 2007 its editor published Sandra Xi that we recently used in intel four core test . Processor measurements come to confirm a light fall in performances related to the passage in 65 Nm of Athlon 64 X2 5000+. Core 2 Duo E6400 does even better than Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE. As for Athlon 64 X2 4600+ it is level vs Core 2 Duo E6300 in MIPS are looked but it made outdistance on the level of MFLOPS. Sandra Xi - Memory test Athlon 64 and their controller integrated continue to make the happiness of Sandra: processors AMD being largely in front of their opponents INTEL. The difference between Athlon 64 X2 5000+ made in 90 Nm and Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE in 65 Nm reaches here a little more than 2% and extremely curiously, Athlon 64 4600+ EE is at the head. ScienceMark 2.0 - Primordia This good ScienceMark old man continues to go in favor of Athlon 64 X2. However, old X2 5000+ made in 90 Nm is shown more powerful than the new model 65 Nm: the variation here is about 5%. Core 2 Duo E6600 is thus in equality with Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 65 Nm whereas Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE  service better than Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6300: it is 24% faster here than Core 2 Duo E6300. Cinebench 9.5 Let us now go with Cinebench 9.5 a software of returned 3D which rate the system according to the time necessary to reder a 3D scene . Core 2 Duo E6600 preserves the pole position here . Once more, the model 90 Nm is faster than its successor with a better score of 1%. we note the-perfect equality between Core 2 Duo E6400 and Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE. Adobe Photoshop CS 2.0 We benefit from the new year to adopt version 2.0 Photoshop CS. The occasion to change our test to use this time the filter radial blur, a multi-threaded filter. We measure time necessary to the application of this filter on an image with resolution 2.048 X 3.072. the results are expressed in second,. Surprised, Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 90 Nm makes here better than Core 2 Duo E6600. Photoshop CS 2 confirms the loss of performances generated by the passage to the 65 Nm since 65nm cpu loses here more than three seconds in the application of filter. Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400 being slower than Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE. Windows Media Encoder 9.0 Here, we measure the time put by each one of our systems to compress a video at the origin format AVI. The results are expressed in seconds:. Core 2 Duo E6300 and Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE take practically a minute more to encode our video vs Core 2 Duo E6600. This last is at the head and Core 2 Duo E6400 finishes second, in front of Athlon 64 X2 5000+. The penalty generated by the passage to the 65 Nm at AMD is painless here: Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Windsor and Brisbane being with equality. Files Compression WinRAR 3.62 the results are expressed here in seconds. Core 2 Duo dominate the exercise whereas the passage to the 65 Nm does not seem definitely a succes in Athlon 64 X2 5000+ with Brisbane core it  is ten seconds slower than Windsor core in 90 Nm… 3DSMax 8 - Radiosity We measure the time necessary to render a 3D scene in 800x600 with radiosity. Once again, the results are expressed in seconds. We find Core 2 Duo E6600 at the head  whereas our two Athlon 64 X2 5000+ are here with equality while being slightly faster than Core 2 Duo E6400. Core 2 Duo E6300  spends 20 seconds more than Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 65 Nm to calculate our test scene . TMPGenc 4.0 We use TMPGenc here to convert into MPEG2 a file AVI with more than 979 Mb having a bitrate of 9 Mb/S and a resolution NTSC of 720x480. The results here are also expressed in seconds. Core 2 Duo  at the head whereas Athlon 64 X2 5000+ made in 65 Nm spends three seconds more than its counterpart in 90 Nm . Core 2 Duo E6400 dominate here its task in thirty seconds less than Athlon 64 X2 5000+. Studio 10.7 we have done here the compression with format MPEG 4 bitrate 6 Mb/S. the results is expressed in seconds. Core 2 Duo E6600 is once again the fastest processor whereas Core 2 Duo E6300 and Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE close again the ball. There difference in performances between Athlon 64 X2 made in 90nm and 65nm, the small last-born from AMD being slower than its elder at equal frequency. Mathematica 5.1 Mathematica go in favor of Core 2 Duo E6600 which is once more first, followed-up there with Core 2 Duo E6400. The higher latency times of Brisbane core 65 Nm penalize here slightly the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ whereas Core 2 Duo E6300 is slightly in withdrawal vs Athlon 64 X2 4600+ EE. Doom 3 v1.3 - 1024x768x32 Doom 3 shows us that the game seems particularly limited by the graphics card, all our processors being almost with equality. Core 2 Duo E6600 as usually take the lead whereas Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 65 Nm shows a loss by three fps / second vs the model made in 90 Nm. Far Cry v1.4 - 1024x768x32 For Far Cry Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6600 make the difference here. The platform Core 2 Duo E6400 is thus 10% faster than the system Athlon 64 X2 5000+. Although  the game confirms the loss of performances related to the passage in 65 Nm with fps . Call Of Duty 2 - v1.3 - 1024x768x32 We finish this series of tests with Call Duty 2 which is particularly favorable to Core 2 Duo. Our three processors INTEL occupy the first three podium position whereas . X2 5000+ 90 Nm is once again faster than its equivalent 65 Nm with a difference in performances approximately 5%! Conclusion You will have understood that the arrival of the smoothness 65 Nm is done definitely in the pain of AMD. After having known many delays on the development of this process,amd propose finally a processor to us which has equal frequency is less powerful than its predecessors! Thus Athlon 64 X2 5000+ in 90 Nm is shown faster than the new model made in 65 Nm and equipped with the Brisbane core! The fault is due to the increase in the latency times of L2 memory … As for overclocking, the arrival of 65 Nm really does not seem to facilitate the things . Extremely of this review, we have thus the right to ask the question what is the real interest for the passage to the 65 Nm. For AMD, it is obvious since it should make possible to the firm to have better outputs and to produce always more processors. But for the consumer is there somethings? The performances degrading , the only consolation holds in the promise of electric consumption and less heating. we notes a certain progress on this side except that vs the preceding models Energy Efficient made in 90 Nm, the 65 Nm seems to do nothing to improve things… Lastly, if we compares the electric consumption of system Athlon 64 X2 EE with platform INTEL, the advantage always returns in Core 2 Duo. In short ultimately the processors 65 Nm do not seem to offer sufficient assets to encourage the current owners of Athlon 64 X2 AM2 90 Nm to invest in a change of processor. The purchasers of new equipment will have for their part interest to consider the offer from INTEL which remains in this beginning 2007 most interesting as well on the plan of the performances as on the electric consumption… If to finish, we speak price, the choice can be even done more quickly since Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE is negotiated with the same price as Core 2 Duo E6600, model largely more powerful and  much much much ... more easily overclockable! xtreview is your : Video card - cpu - memory - Hard drive - power supply unit source we would be happy to answer for your question . if you have suggestion or comment regarding this review our support would be glad to help just join our forum and ask u will get the best answer to discuss check our forum section :-) RATE THIS REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5    / 5   View Stat

computer news computer parts review Old Forum Downloads New Forum Login Join Articles terms Hardware blog Sitemap Get Freebies