AMD’s Processor Lineup: A Yield Party
All modern processors consist of three main elements that must be carefully balanced: core count, cache capacities, and clock speed. This balance must take into account the manufacturing process, possible voltages, clock rates, thermal and electrical limits, yields, and eventually total cost.
Shrinking the manufacturing technology—for example, from 65nm to 45nm—allows chip makers to optimize one or several of these parameters. Smaller and more efficient transistors can usually operate at higher clock speeds. But it’s also possible to add more cores or larger caches to increase performance. Lastly, manufacturers may leave processor designs largely unchanged and simply bring power consumption down. This approach can also buy chipmakers more time to collect experience on a new process before making modifications.
Since AMD does not have Intel’s vast manufacturing capacities (the company recently spun off its facilities into GlobalFoundries), it has to focus on maximizing output. As a result, the vast majority of AMD’s products at any given time are based on a single processor design that can be modified (usually simplified) to address different price points and market segments, all the while maximizing yield rates. The issue here is simple: one size doesn’t fit it all on the market anymore, but one size has to fit it all in manufacturing.
Intel, by the way, has been doing very much the same thing. All 45nm Core 2 processors are technically based on the dual-core Wolfdale design, and the firm utilizes two of them to create the Yorkfield quad-core CPUs (Core 2 Quad, Extreme). Intel only modifies the dies by limiting L2 cache capacities. AMD, however, has been much more aggressive in creating different products out of the 45nm quad-core Deneb design. The company dives deeper into the dies, switching more individual units off (or on) to master the yield challenge. The result is sometimes different dies that all share the same origin. Here’s a quick overview of multiple AMD products all based on the same underlying design:
Deneb, quad-core, 6 MB or 4 MB L3 cache (2.4 to 3.4 GHz)
Heka, triple-core, 6 MB L3 cache (2.4 to 3.0 GHz)
Callisto, dual-core, 6 MB L3 cache (3.0 to 3.1 GHz)
Propus, quad-core, no L3 cache (2.6+ GHz)
Rana, triple-core, no L3 cache (2.7+ GHz)
Regor, dual-core, no L3 cache (2.8 to 3.0 GHz)
Editor's Note: Getting Turned On
Incidentally, AMD has confirmed that early Athlon II X4s are being sold on Propus and Deneb core designs, the former without any L3 cache by design and the latter with 6MB of L3 disabled.
We dusted off our faithful ASRock M3A790GXH/128M motherboard, which we've used in the past to unlock Phenom II X3s and X4s, and then unlock Phenom II X2s. Unfortunately, while we've seen the screenshots of Athlon II X4s with 6MB L3 cache, our 620 ran with ACC enabled, but didn't unlock the L3 cache, while our 630 simply wouldn't boot.
As before, don't buy one of these less-expensive chips counting on an easy upgrade with the right SB750-equipped motherboard. Though a handful of processors might surprise you, chances are good that you won't get the equivalent of a Phenom II X4 out of one of these new Athlon IIs.
It would have been interesting to see a clock-for-clock comparison of a Phenom II X4 and Athlon II X4 to see the difference the L3 cache makes...
...However that does look like an attractive CPU, especially given the price. I can see this being very successful (might push for some of these in our next upgrade cycle!)
I completely agree with mi1ez. Will going through the review, as was really hoping that there would be some clock-for-clock comparison.
I can see OEM's selling theese like pancakes. Slap some cheap 1GB video card in and You have uber marketing. Quad core with 1GB Video card at low price, average uninformed Joes will be byuing these like crazy.
OEM's have been selling Q8200 with 1GB GTS120 for £700, now they can cut costs and still sell in same pricerange. People buy and think they got superpowerfull PC because it has quad core and it is gaming PC because it's got !GB video card
I hope after i5 and i7 price of core 2 q will go down, as well i5 is very cheap and comparing performance its not really standing out of the crowd, so once more core 2 rules, q9550 is a killer
I agree, it does seem like a very respectable product - especially the price. It's quad-core for the masses and to be honest, there does not seem to be a massive performance hit due to the missing L3, in my opinion.
If I was building a rig to play GTA IV I'd seriously consider this, because what I save on the CPU I can put towards a better graphics card. If it's good enough to run alongside Intel' Core 2 Quad, at a lower price, then I really can't see the problem - especially when there are people out there with AM2/AM2+ boards who want to step up the performance ladder a bit without breaking the bank or forcing the local power station to go on over-drive.
What has i5 to offer? It it's price is low it could render Core 2 as a redundant product, just like Core 2 did with Pentium 4. Plus, it carries with it overheads in terms of new boards and memory. The only alternative is to get a much faster (and more expensive), Core 2 Quad or overclock. Both are feasible of course, but this little Quad-core gem for 100 bux..a drop-in replacement for existing products that's able to fit within the existing power range? Hard to resist that in these tough economic times.
"and the fact that an average mainstream AMD motherboard is still cheaper than an Intel equivalent..." - erm - what planet are you living on? An entry level Intel G31 based motherboard sells for around £30 in the UK (which would easily support a C2Q Q9550 at full speed) whereas TH has chosen to benchmark this new AMD chip on a £110 motherboard!
If you're serious about touting this chip as an ideal drop in upgrade for an older AM2+ motherboard, benchmark it on such a board so at least us plebs can see how well it really performs.
All I can see on the AMD front around the £30 motherboard mark are GeForce 7050 or 6100 AM2+ based boards. The cheapest AM3 motherboard currently available in the UK is an MSI 770-C45 AMD 770 for £50.
Given that DDR3 is still around 1.5 times the price of DDR2, the only way to build a cheaper AMD based Quad core solution is by plugging it into an AM2+ motherboard with DDR2. So lets see some benchmarks of this chip in exactly that sort of set up.
Hiya Kulwant,
I wouldn't expect it to perform as good in an AM2+..if that were the case, wouldn't AMD be shooting itself in the foot, so to speak? On the other hand I wouldn't expect the actual difference to be huge, either.
For anyone that has an older system and wants some more grunt for say, transcoding or running games like GTA IV, I can't really see a problem with it especially at this price point. I reckon you'd be able to get some decent overclocks even on AM2+ as well. For around the same money as a dual-core CPU my clients can now go Quad, if they need it. Some do go AM3, and boards like that £50 seem to have an awful lot of bang for the buck compared to Intel, but most just have older boards that need a bit of a boost. The Intel alternative is simply beyond their price point but naturally it comes down to who the client is and their personal preference.
Would it have been so hard to include the Phenom II 720 X3 BE ? 3 core curiosity to compare vs these processors?
Here's a quick way to compare relative performance:
Normalized Performance Rating CPU chart
AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE Heka 3 AM3 x64, SSE4A 4.10
AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 4 AM3 x64, SSE4A 3.93
Hardly any difference just ~4%, so it's more about price than performance between those two.
Thanks Rescator. If Santa doesn't bring me one of these I'm gonna kick him in the belly 16 times for every core I lose out on.
i got an II X4 620 (the AMD II X2 the retail heatsink does not warm up under full load) and there is no heat issues at all the thing runs at 35-40c constantly removing the L3 cache really does lower the temps a lot even the Phemon II runs hot when its idle
now i can use an Quad core AMD cpu with out having to buy an very big heatsink to cool it
just bare in mind guys. its a quadcore from athlon, and although it's not specified,it's 2.6GHz per processor. which means this darn chip doesn't actualy need a meter of cpu usage because it's four times faster and could possibly have no limits. i say thumbz up to athlon. i really need to get myself one of these.