Everybody is getting excited about the upcoming Phenom II launch. AMD has already released a bit of information, saying that the 45 nm Phenom II has reached 6.3 GHz cooled with liquid nitrogen, and the pre-release press information indicates that overclocking margins could be as substantial as the potential of a Core 2 processor. However, Phenom II isn't here yet. But AMD {has} just introduced a new Athlon X2 product, which is based on the Phenom's Stars core. We're taking a look at the Athlon X2 7000-series, which brings AMD's dual-core performance up a bit.
The Athlon X2 7000-Series: Phenom Recycled
While AMD's upcoming Phenom II processor represents a new product, shrunk to the new 45 nm DSL SOI process and with more cache memory, the Athlon X2 7000-series is nothing short of the already-well-known Phenom on the bug-fixed B3 stepping. You can tell this by the model numbers, which all end in 50. The 7000 model number most likely was chosen to compete with Intel's Core 2 Duo E7000 series, which includes the same total amount of cache memory. However, while the new Athlon X2 7000 comes with 512 KB L2 cache per core and an additional 2 MB shared L3 cache for both cores, Core 2 Duo E7000 just has its 3 MB shared L2 cache.
The processor die of today's launch is identical to the Phenom X4 and X3, but only two cores are activated. While this is a performance disadvantage for multi-threaded applications, it introduces an advantage in terms of power consumption, as two processing units require less power than three or four. In addition, AMD now has the option to recycle Phenom processors that might have issues with up to two cores. With two cores disabled and re-branded to Athlon X2, the new generation takes on the old Athlon X2 at up to 6400+ speeds, as well as the Core 2 Duo family.
Black Edition Is A Go!
The Black Edition processors (BE) are the most interesting ones, as they come with unlocked multipliers. Hence, it is possible to more easily overclock these. Only the 2.7 GHz top model Athlon X2 7750 is a Black Edition--the two other models are called 7750 and 7450, running at 2.5 and 2.4 GHz. All Athlon X2 7000 processors are at 95 W Thermal Design Power (TDP), although AMD mainstream processors typically stay below that.
Catching Up With Core 2?
The big question is: can the Athlon X2 7000-series catch up with Intel's Core 2 Duo processor family? In the end, the new chip comes with 512 KB L2 cache per core and the Phenom's 2 MB L3 cache, which might provide an advantage. AMD caches are exclusive, which means that contents stored within one level of the cache aren't stored redundantly in a lower level. We'll break the anticipation early: the 45 nm Core 2 family remains faster, but the new X2 7000 still represents an excellent option for users who insist on ideal price/performance ratio, and--more importantly--for upgrade users who already use a socket AM2/AM2+ system.

Given how much Core2s can be overclocked, compared to the limits
of the Athlon64 X2 (3.25GHz is about the max usually), I don't
see any compelling case for these 7000 series CPUs. I bought
a 6000+ because it was the very week AMD halved its prices, thus
the price was very attractive compared to the Core2s available
at the time (April 2007), but it's a very different situation
today. For those considering an upgrade, given the minimal speed
gains shown by the 7000 chips, a 6000+ makes more sense, or
better still just bite the bullet and get a Core2 and new mbd.
I like my 6000+ system a lot (I run it at 3.225GHz with an U120):
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/mysystemsummary2.txt
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/ASUS_M2N32-WS-Pro.jpg
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/Gigabyte8800GT-Zalman.jpg
but the 7000s CPUs offer nothing new IMO. I wish it were
otherwise, but this is the truth. The charts show again
and again that the 6400+ is better than the new 7000 series,
so what's the point? And then compare to an oc'd Core2 such
as an E8400 or similar? Ouch...
Atm, my next system will be an i7 920 by the looks of it.
Ian.
*citation needed
spuddyt, you're right.
I had a look around. Other sites either don't compare to the 6000+
or 6400+, don't bother listing Intel dual-cores like the E5200
or E8400, don't show results from an oc'd Intel dual-core, use
stupid graphs that begin at a non-zero value which makes the
AMD chips look better, or compare the 7K Black Edition to a
pointless CPU like the 5000+.
I see no evidence that other sites show better results with the
7K chips at all, and I don't believe you could find a single
test where the 7K Black Edition would beat an E8400 with a simple
air overclock (indeed, most of the time an E8400 will be faster
just at stock speed). Other sites that did bother comparing to
the 6000+ show it to match the 7K B.E. almost exactly, which
means the 6400+ would beat it no problem, as it does in the toms
review.
Despite this, article conclusions on other sites always sing
the praises of these new CPUs, which I don't understand.
One site showed the 7K B.E. consistently losing out to an E5200,
which is really lame. Now consider the E5200 oc'd and well, the
7K is left in the dust.
I would love to read news of a good AMD dual-core that
significantly beats the 6000+, but there just isn't one, period.
Right now, for someone thinking of upgrading, switching to an
Intel board with an E8400 or somesuch makes way more sense.
Ian.
I think the 400 MHz should be 1.6 GB/s (quad-pumped = 12.8 GB/s)
I think the 400 MHz should be 1.6 GB/s (quad-pumped = 12.8 GB/s)
400MHz quad-pumped = 1.6GB/s
x8
=12.8GB/s
Sorry for the error (caught up in the Christmas rush).
Also, looking at the overall chart positions..I think AMD does do a decent job competing with Intel, even if one has to run at higher core clock speeds.
AMD only competes on price. It's absolutely nowhere when it comes
to performance. I wish it were otherwise, but the numbers are
clear. AMD appears to have a real problem getting past 3GHz.
The faster HT speed doesn't seem to help much either.
Just look at the video encoding results (my own field of interest);
Intel wins hands down, without any oc'ing, and most of the time
the 6400+ is faster than the 7K Black (when the 7K Black is
faster, the margin is not significant). Now take into account
how easy it is to oc the E8200, E8400, etc. and it's pretty
obvious the 7Ks offer nothing compelling at all.
The situation for the 7Ks is even worse with the gaming results,
often losing out to much older AMD dual-cores, while Intel's
result go through the roof. Indeed, most of the time the 7K Black
can't even beat a mere 5600+! The Supreme Commander scores are
particularly grim, with the 7Ks slower than a 4600+.
Believe me, I really want AMD to be in this game (my own system
is a 6000+), but right now they're nowhere except on price. As
Intel's performance levels increase, even the pricing argument
for AMD starts to fade since Intel wins on price/performance by
a large margin, making it worth any extra cost to get a Core2
or i7.
Right now, AMD has absolutely nothing that can match such an
effective combination as an E8200/E8400 with a Xigmatek
HDT-S1283 Heatpipe, oc the sucker to 4GHz, leave the 7K Black
in the dust.
Come on AMD, produce something that's worth buying! Phenom was
bad enough, often offering no gain over the previous 6000+ (in
some cases slower), but this is crazy. The market needs proper
competition, otherwise Intel will slow down its release schedule
purely because it doesn't have to release products as fast in
order to stay ahead, which is bad news for customers.
Ian.
custom pc says "AMD is marketing the new chips as a part of its ‘Cartwheel’ platform, which enables system builders to create budget systems from AMD components. A Cartwheel system will feature an AMD Athlon X2 7000-series CPU, along with an AMD 780G motherboard chipset with integrated Radeon HD 3200 graphics.
So is that all AMD cares about now? Budget systems? Dash of
sarcasm there obviously (I'm sure AMD doesn't want to be
uncompetitive in the performance market), but atm AMD just seems
to be so far behind. It's sad, and not healthy for competition.
Ian.
Say I'm pro-Intel is ridiculous. As I say, when I bought my own
upgrads, I went for a 6000+ because it easily won on price.
And what site reviews are you referring to? Specifics please.
I checked a bunch of reviews and found no evidence that other
sites were getting significantly better results. I still see
nothing offered in these 7K CPUs which isn't already available
with the 6000+ or similar CPUs. Other sites also showed in some
cases the 7K chips being slower than really old CPUs. It's not
being pro-Intel to point out the truth. If the 2 companies had
two totally identical products re performance and price, I'd
choose AMD.
Ian.
That's true enough I guess; if the 7Ks are cheaper and use less
power than the older series, then those with older systems who
do want to upgrade have a better option for the time being.
I just want to see AMD get back into the game. I've been very
happy with my 6000+ system, but my next build, though limited to
some extent by budget constraints, is very much focused on
performance, which right now steers me towards an i7 920 setup,
assuming prices are a tad more sensible by summer/09.
Ian.
When it comes to performance, the 7Ks can't even compete with
a simple Intel dual-core, never mind the i7. Heck, much of the
time the 7Ks are slower than AMD's own older dual cores at lower
clocks!
And there comes a point where the extra cost is worthwhile. I'm
not saying that's now, but I'm sure there will be cheaper i7
mbds available within a few months. Until then, a Core2 is still
a better choice than a 7K IMO.
As for the 7Ks as an upgrade, I still don't see the point. You've
just said 'most' games are boosted purely by clock frequency;
thus, why bother with a 7750 for 63 UKP when a 3.1GHz 6000+ is
60 UKP and faster in almost every case? Once again, I don't see
the point of these new 7K CPUs. They're not remotely the best
choice for a new system build, and they're slower than a cheaper
6000+.
Pricing from lambda-tek.com (NB: they have the 3.2GHz 6000+ for
67.64).
People keep saying here that a 7K looks like a good idea, but
have still not provided any evidence of this, on either price
or performance.
My previous post included a caveat of the 7K being cheaper. It's
not. Are you really saying you would recommend a 2.7GHz 7750 for
63 UKP as an upgrade instead of a 3.1GHz 6000+ for 60 UKP?
If AMD don't produce something better, it certainly will not
force Intel to lower its prices, not when AMD doesn't have a
competing product.
Ian.
as for the benchmarks,
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-athlon-x2-7750-be-review/11
e8200 is performing at the same level and that cpu is twice the price as the 7750. (ebuyer, e8200 £122+vat)
If we're talking overclocking, AMD loses again by a huge margin.
I don't know what you mean by obsolete; a system with such a CPU
will still take future gfx card products for a long time and
that's surely what matters in this context.
And I was thinking of the E7200, not the E8200. It's more
expensive than a 6000+ or 7750, but faster, and once the oc
potential is factored in, much faster.
For me it's a simple equation. If someone is thinking of
upgrading an older AMD system, the 6000+ makes more sense.
If they're thinking of a new build, then the extra cost of
an Intel is more than worth it.
Guru3D is annoyingly using plugins for its results (I don't
have the relevant plugin installed so I can't see the data),
but tom's own article shows how a cheaper E7200 can be oc'd
to an enormous degree.
I'm not an Intel fan by any means (I have dozens of computers,
only 2 of them are Intel), but it seems to me many people are
desparately trying to convince themselves that these 7K chips
are better than they really are.
Ian.