AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+: Dynamic Duo!
Written: Aug 29 '05 (Updated Nov 28 '05)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Dual core with individual Cache (!!!), overall performance, socket 939 compatible, 64bit, efficient memory controller
Cons: Currently limited software support for full benefit, no DDR2 or DDR3 support
The Bottom Line: A great entry level dual core CPU, but with single thread software currently outpaced by the FX57.
|
|
|
| theuerkorn's Full Review: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4200+, 2.2 GHz (ADA4200BVBOX) ... |
In a time where game consoles are getting a processor with no less than 6 cores (IBM Cell for PS3), dual core processors just about make it into PCs creating a new hype for promised speed improvements.
The X2 family currently consists of 5 models out of which the 3800 is the entry level model and the other four are divided into 2 groups Manchester core and Toledo core with the latter sporting twice the memory in on-chip L2 cache (2MB vs. 1 MB). Within each group there are 2 speeds (2.2GHz or 2.4 GHz) and the economy model 3800 is practically a slower 4200 (Manchester core).
X2 3800+: 2.0 GHz / 2x 512 kByte L2 (157,000,000 transistors)
X2 4200+: 2.2 GHz / 2x 512 kByte L2 (157,000,000 transistors)
X2 4400+: 2.2 GHz / 2x 1 MByte L2 (233,000,000 transistors)
X2 4600+: 2.4 GHz / 2x 512 kByte L2 (157,000,000 transistors)
X2 4800+: 2.4 GHz / 2x 1 MByte L2 (233,000,000 transistors)
Power consumption ranges between 89 Watts and 110 Watts respectively for the Manchester core and the Toledo.
INSTALLATION
Thanks to AMD's continued use of Socket 939, I was able to reuse my computer which held until now AMD's Athlon 64 3500 (socket 939) with satisfactory results. Hence, the upgrade is as easy as removing the old processor and heat sink and replacing both with the new parts. Be sure to handle the processor contacts carefully to avoid bending and of course be grounded to avoid electrostatic discharge. Either could kill the processor.
But before you do the hardware upgrade, make sure that your BIOS is updated and compatible with the dual core processor. For the ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe motherboard, this would be v1011 or later (currently v1013). In case you forgot this step, you may need another computer w/ Internet access to download the update and must install via floppy disk. Also, make sure to update the chipset driver (nVidia nForce4 v6.66 is required to work with dual core Athlons).
That's pretty much it and upon loading WindowsXP the system will recognize the dual core capability (if you didn't have it before) and install the needed routines followed by a reboot to make it active. That's about all that needs to be done and your system should be ready to use.
- Motherboard: ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe (bios v1013, nForce4 v6.66)
- Memory: Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2PT, 2 GByte DDR400
- Hard drive: Western Digital Raptor 74G SATA 10k
- Case: Termaltake Tsunami VA3400SNA
- Monitor: Viewsonic VP201s
- Graphics card: MSI RX800Pro-TD256E (Catalyst 5.8)
- WindowsXP x64 Professional
- WindowsXP Home Edition SP2
Recap: Before buying a dual core CPU make sure that your motherboard uses socket 939 and the manufacturer provides a BIOS update to support dual core processors. Further, the chipset driver needs to be updated. With that it's very easy to upgrade.
HARDWARE NOTES
The time of truth has come and let's start with the memory controller (built into the CPU). My previous processor (Athlon 64 3500 ) amazed me with 6.4 GB/s data transfer with HyperX memory (DDR400, timing 2-3-2-6-1) or 93% efficiency -- with 108% overclocking. This being the bar, the Athlon X2 4200 surprised with "only" 5.6 GB/s (87% efficiency) using the same memory and motherboard.
By the time I added two more identical sticks (2x 512MB) to double my memory to 2 GByte (4x 512MB HyperX), the internal memory controller was unable to hold the 1T timing or 400 MHz. (Windows didn't even recognize the Windows system files and failed booting.) Working at 333 MHz and 2T timing the data rate dropped to 3.4 GByte/sec and reason enough to pull the second set and return it for a set of two 1 GByte sticks (which eventually replaced the first 1 GB as well).
Overclocking seems a little iffy with the X2, or at least with Asus' adaptive overclocking. Should you run into stability problems start with resetting the BIOS memory timing parameters (start with Auto) and disable AI-N.O.S. as the latter caused my system to hang after a few minutes of use. Somehow the X2 seems not fully compatible (yet) with ASUS' otherwise impressive tool.
All Athlon 64 X2 models support DDR memory and are not DDR2 or DDR3 ready. That apparently will require another socket update (M2, 940 pin) and ultimately render your current motherboard obsolete. Nevertheless, the X2 offers a money saving way to upgrade your existing socket 939 hardware with some of the fastest processors currently available while retaining a maximum of the existing hardware (incl. RAM). Besides, the DDR2 support is not due at AMD before 2006 and DDR3 in 2007. (Don't feel bad about it as currently most applications would not see a difference anyway.)
BENEFITS
Before any benchmarks, I tried the latest resource hog first, and the very power demanding F.E.A.R. changed character as if it was meant to be run on a dual core processor. (Is it?) The very laggy response in maximum settings at 1600x1200 turned into near instant gameplay with a few exceptions when entering rooms etc.. This was a major surprise as I suspected until now that the graphics settings and ultimately the video card were to blame, nor did I think it would take advantage of two cores. Analyzing the CPU activity revealed that the improvement actually is attributable to off-loading system task one the second core. (In contrast, Need For Speed: Underground 2 didn't see any improvement related to the X2 and in fact started to feel very choppy. Further, ToCa 2 became a beast hard to manage with extreme (!) acceleration and steering.)
More along the expected lines is the improvement seen when running two processes at the same time. I converted a DVD video (PAL to NSTC) with Nero Vision Express 3 while working on a design with PainterIX. Nero would actually use both cores during the recoding (translation) but otherwise kept to one core and allowing to run PainterIX near full speed on the other. (Painter appears to be a pure single-threaded process.) By the way, the video conversion was done in half the time from my previous A64 3500+ and that seems to confirm the benchmark's validity for computing intense tasks. (See below.)
With this impressive justification of my "investment", I dared to move on to benchmarks. The graphics and CPU test 3DMark05 is very demanding and returned a respectable 4950 score for my system. Moving on, the Sandra 2005 cpu benchmark determined 18700 Mips (Dhrystone) and 6996 MFlops (Whetstone FPU) or 9058 MFlops (Whetstone iSSE). Now that's almost twice the numbers of the Athlon 64 3500+ or 3.4GHz Pentium IV. Impressive!
Most applications may not notice the improvements as they either don't take advantage of the presence of two full processors or simply don't need all the power provided even by lesser models (i.e. Internet browser). However, with dual processors on the rise, there will be eventually more applications that use the power. The good thing is that even if you continue to use the Athlon single core processor, the shared 939 socket allows to switch whenever you're ready.
[Update] Especially games seem to have sometimes trouble with dual core processors (unlike HT it's truly asyncronous). Need for Speed Most Wanted and Call of Duty 2 are current examples where resticting the program to one core fixes some problems. (see links below for details on the dual core issue etc.) This seems to be especially happening with WindowsXP SP2.
SUMMARY
The Dual Core processor may be a lot of marketing hype at a time where official support by a majority of software is sketchy at best. Nevertheless, the improvements were immediately visible and quite honestly justify the expense for me with the knowledge that it has room to grow as support does.
The improvements surprised with a significant boost in unexpected areas like the "utra-demanding" F.E.A.R. which seems not only video intense but also hard on the CPU. Due to the availability of two full cores (rather than logical units in HyperThreading), lag time due to 100% usage by a single task puts typical multitasking deficiencies of Windows to rest. (Unix users may start wiping their grin off their face.) In fact, many programs that showed the typical freeze due to short-term 100% CPU usage, now simply would not lock up anymore - what a relief! (Finally Windows feels like a true multitasking OS.)
In the end it turns out that the dual core is more than just marketing hype and especially with improved multi-processor support as seen in WindowsXP x64 Professional but even WindowsXP Home Edition got a good boost out of the upgrade. Just make sure you get memory modules to match and watch out for the compatibility issue when using all 4 memory slots.
© 2005, theuerkorn
UPDATES
[26-Nov-2005] - Several games later it turns out that dual core processors apparently can have an adverse effect on some recent releases. While I am still debugging the true nature of problems with Need for Speed: Most Wanted, it has been documented that Call of Duty 2 shows several bugs related to AMD's dual core Athlon64 X2. The same may be true for other games or applications, and it's surprising that even half a year after the release of the popular dual core processors by AMD, game some developers apparently didn't bother to test their stuff on it.
ONLINE RESOURCES
- ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe motherboard
- Western Digital Raptor 74G SATA 10k hard drive
- MSI RX800Pro-TD256E video card
- WindowsXP x64 Professional
- WindowsXP Home Edition
AMD Athlon X2 Overview
www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13076,00.html
AMD Athlon X2 Drivers etc.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html
AMD Athlon X2 Datasheet
www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/33425.pdf
Microsoft: WindowsXP on dual core processors
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896256
Online review (w/ benchmarks)
www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.