With the release of the Phenom II family of processors, AMD was able to regain the attention of users, strengthening its significantly weakened position in the processor market. AMD recently switched its CPUs to support DDR3 memory, thereby releasing models with a new design - Socket AM3, which complemented the solutions on the market with socket AM2 and AM2+ that support DDR2. A special feature of the new processors is full compatibility with motherboards equipped with the AM2+ socket, which made it possible for many users to upgrade at minimal financial cost without replacing their motherboard.
The main advantage of boards for Socket AM3 lies in the support for faster DDR3 memory, which in itself makes these solutions more relevant and modern. On the other hand, it is known that due to higher latency, the advantages of low-frequency DDR3 memory modules over regular DDR2 tend to zero. On this moment In terms of price, approximate parity has been established between memory of different standards, with the exception of high-frequency “overclocking” DDR3 kits, the cost of which is by no means affordable. A pair of sticks designed for frequencies of 1600 MHz and higher are still more expensive than an equivalent set of older DDR2 operating at 1066 MHz. And the cost of motherboards with a progressive Socket AM3 connector is higher than their analogues for AM2+ processors.
Despite the price factor, users are still looking at the new type of memory, and it becomes interesting to look at the dependence of the performance of AMD processors at different memory frequencies and timings. To do this, we will compare the three-core and quad-core Phenom II processors at operating memory frequencies from 800 MHz (DDR2) to 1600 MHz (DDR3), which will make it possible to identify not only differences in performance between the AM2+ and AM3 platforms, but also to track the dynamics of the dependence of the results on RAM bandwidth.
Our testing used the Phenom II X3 720 BE and Phenom II X4 955 BE processors, operating at nominal 2.8 and 3.2 GHz, respectively. We specifically selected two processors with different processing power and number of cores in order to identify the relevance of high-frequency memory modules with higher bandwidth for both older representatives of the Phenom II family and mid-class models.
Processor Specifications
Basic data on processors is included in the following table:
| AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE | |
| Core | Deneb | Heka |
| Technical process, nm | 45 SOI | 45 SOI |
| Connector | AM3 | AM3 |
| Frequency, MHz | 3200 | 2800 |
| Factor | 16 | 14 |
| Clock generator | 200 | 200 |
| L1 cache, KB | 128 x 4 | 128 x 3 |
| L2 cache, KB | 512 x 4 | 512 x 3 |
| L3 cache, KB | 6144 | 6144 |
| Supply voltage, V | 0,875-1,5 | 0,850-1,425 |
| TDP, W | 125 | 95 |
We also provide a couple of screenshots of the CPU-Z utility with data on the processors in question:
Test configuration
The Socket AM2+ platform was tested on the following configuration:
- Processors AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE, Phenom II X4 955 BE;
- Cooler: Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme;
- Motherboard: MSI 790XT-G45;
- Video card: Point of View GF9800GTX 512MB GDDR3 EXO (@818/1944/2420 MHz);
- Memory: OCZ OCZ2FXE12004GK (2x2GB DDR2-1200);
- Sound card: Creative Audigy 4 (SB0610);
- Hard drive: WD3200AAKS (320 GB, SATA II);
- Power supply: FSP FX700-GLN (700 W);
- Operating system: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 x64;
- Video card driver: ForceWare 190.62.
- Motherboard: MSI 790FX-GD70;
- Memory: Kingston KHX1600C9D3K2/4G (2x2GB DDR3-1600).
Since the Ungaged mode is enabled by default, it was used as the main one. In Gunged mode, additional tests were carried out only at the maximum frequency of DDR2 and DDR3 memory, since it would be logical to assume that it is with higher memory bandwidth that the operating features of the memory controller will be more noticeable.
We also conducted a number of additional tests at an increased frequency of the NB north bridge built into the processor, at the frequency of which the memory controller and third-level cache operate. Theoretically, by increasing the NB frequency we should get quite a noticeable performance increase. Again, to identify the dependence of performance on this factor, we performed the test only at the maximum memory frequency. Unfortunately, due to lack of time, we had to limit ourselves to tests only on Socket AM3 in combination with DDR3.
For both processors in each testing mode, the same timings were set, the Drive Strength parameters were left in Auto mode.
Test Modes
Memory modules with this frequency are the most common and affordable. Latencies 5-5-5-18 are standard for this memory (with the exception of overclockers with low timings). However, in Lately There are many modules designed for CL6 on the market, but they usually work without problems at lower latencies.
For the Phenom II X3 720 BE and Phenom II X4 955 BE at a given DDR2 memory frequency, all timings were fixed at the following values:
The maximum operating mode for AMD processors is DDR2 memory.
In the first case, we used fairly high timings, which were set to the following values:
More relevant mode with CAS Latency 5.
Memory latencies were set for processors to the following values:
The memory settings are identical to the previous configuration, but the controller operates in Ganged mode.
Officially, Phenom II processors only support DDR3-800/1066/1333 memory, but top-end motherboards allow a nominal frequency of 1600 MHz. The values of 800 MHz and 1066 MHz are of little interest, since even the cheapest DDR3 memory kits currently available on the market are rated at 1333 MHz. That is why DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600 modes were used for our testing.
For the first mode, delays were set, which in general do not differ much from the standard timings of cheap DDR3-1333 modules.
With memory modules designed for a frequency of 1600 MHz, not everything is so clear in terms of timings. Some of the kits operate at such frequencies at CL9, but most modern overclocking kits are initially designed for 8-8-8 (or even 7-7-7) level timings, so this is the configuration that was used for our tests.
It’s just that in this “high-speed” mode, the Phenom II X3 720 BE completely refused to function normally and no manipulations helped achieve stability at such timings. Only with delays of 9-10-10-24 did the system work without failures. So, with a memory frequency of 1600 MHz, we had to limit ourselves to testing only one Phenom II X4 955 BE. We also note that such “incompatibility” was an isolated case for us, and the Phenom II X2, and even the Athlon II X2 (which will appear in our next articles) worked with DDR3-1600 memory without any problems.
Since the Phenom II X3 720 BE worked only with DDR3-1333 MHz, it was at this memory frequency that we tested both processors in Ganged controller mode.
Tests with an increased frequency of the built-in north bridge in the processor (NB) were carried out at different memory frequencies, respectively, for the younger model at DDR3-1333, for the older one at a memory frequency of 1600 MHz.
All timings are identical to the DDR3-1333 7-7-7-20 mode.
All timings are identical to the DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 mode.
Test results
Lavalys Everest Memory Benchmark
Below is the data from the memory subsystem performance test built into the Lavalys Everest program. To reduce the error, this benchmark was run five times for each mode. The letter U in the diagrams denotes the Unganged mode, and G, respectively, Ganged.
Very noticeable growth with increasing memory bandwidth. With DDR2 in Ganged mode, we get an even more than 8% increase, but even when using DDR3 in this mode, the gain in reading speed is negligible.
Here, memory timings and its frequency have almost no effect on the result, but there is a slight drop when working in Ganged mode. But the increase from increasing the frequency of the built-in north bridge is very high.
The huge difference in the Ganged controller mode on the AM2+ and AM3 platforms immediately catches your eye. If on the first one the activation of this mode leads to only a slight drop in results, then on AM3 the difference reaches 20%. There is also a very noticeable lag when using DDR2-800 memory, but between DDR2-800 and DDR3-1333 (or even DDR3-1600) the difference is much smaller.
Overall, memory latency is still slightly reduced when Ganged is activated. The difference between DDR2-1066 and DDR3-1333 turns out to be less than between DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066, and the lag in the configuration with DDR2-800 is most noticeable on the older processor.
PCMark Vantage
IN latest version PCMark application results are not stable. Initially, it was planned to compare our processors in the PCMark Suite, Memory Suite and Productivity Suite test sets, but the spread of results in the first and last was quite large and the final data was completely inadequate. Only the indicators in the Memory Suite were enviably stable, and that is what we present here.
But this test is practically indifferent to memory frequency and other settings, but there is still a slight drop in results when the Ganged mode is activated. Overclocking NB traditionally brings some gains.
WinRar 3.90 b1
The built-in performance test was run seven times.
This application turns out to be quite sensitive to changes in memory frequency; the performance increase from NB is also noticeable, although it is quite small. But the Ganged mode again negatively affects the final result.
7-Zip 4.65
The built-in performance test was run five times.
This archiver no longer reacts to changes in memory bandwidth. If on the older quad-core processor there is still at least some trace of positive dynamics in the growth of results with increasing RAM frequency (in Ganged there is again a slight decrease in the final score), then already on the Phenom II X3 the difference between all modes is calculated in hundredths of a percent, all differences are determined by the error measurements, which is why it is no longer possible to trace any dependence using these data.
Paint.Net 3.36
For tests, a special benchmark version 3.20 was used. To increase the accuracy of the results obtained, the test was run seven times. Note that the spread of results after each test run on the older processor was smaller than on the younger one, and, most likely, the results of the Phenom II X3 again should not be considered very accurate due to the influence of a larger error.
Performance varies slightly between modes. It is noticeable that in Ganged mode the test execution time is slightly faster. Phenom II X3 in combination with DDR3-1333 turns out to be slower for some reason than in combination with DDR2-1066, while Phenom II X4 with DDR3 shows better results than with DDR2. However, let's not forget about the greater impact of the error on the Phenom II X3. This factor may have also caused a certain drop in performance with increasing NB frequency, while on the Phenom II X4 we again see a completely expected increase in results in this mode.
CineBench 10
In this application, the test was repeated three times for each mode.
And again, the difference in the results is so insignificant that it can be attributed to an error, but some patterns are visible in the results. The performance increase with increasing memory frequency, although miniscule, is present. The Ganged mode in the multiprocessor test leads to a slight decrease in the final score.
A surprise awaits us when we look at the results of this test. For unknown reasons, on the Socket AM2+ motherboard they are higher than on the Socket AM3.
But according to the processor test data, everything looks quite adequate and with DDR3 memory processors show better results. On the Phenom II X4, only DDR3-1600 outperforms DDR2-1066 (5-5-5-18); on the Phenom II X3, even with DDR3-1333, the result is not inferior to DDR2-1066.
The Last Remnant
A special gaming benchmark was used, which was run three times.
This game responds quite well to changes in RAM bandwidth. The difference between the slowest DDR2 configuration and the fastest DDR3 configuration reaches 8%. The influence of the Ganged mode manifests itself in different ways: on the AM2+ platform with DDR2 memory we see an increase in results, but on the AM3 platform there is already a drop in performance. Increasing the frequency of the NB block has a very positive effect on performance, and the older processor benefits from this more than the younger one.
Far Cry 2
Game version 1.03. All settings are set to Medium, including the Performance section values (physics, fire, trees). The test included two 7-run cycles of the Ranch Small demo.
IN Far game In Cry 2 we again see a good dependence on the memory subsystem. So, without any overclocking of the processor itself, just raising the frequency of the NB block and using fast DDR3-1600, we achieve a gain of 13% (on the Phenom II X4) over the “slowest” mode with DDR2-800. And in general, as can be seen from the results, DDR2-800 slightly “limits” the potential of both processors. As for the Ganged mode, performance is reduced in it.
Game version 1.2. The tests were carried out in the Crysis Benchmark Tool, the standard CPU-benchmark was run (the bat file for running it is located in the bin 64 folder). This demo includes a scene in which the hero destroys several houses with a grenade launcher, and it puts the maximum possible load on the central processor due to the abundance of fragments and other active objects. The test included five cycles of 4 runs of the test “demo” each.
And this game shows quite a good dependence on the memory subsystem. Once again, the older processor benefits more from higher memory frequencies than the younger one. For the first, the difference between DDR2-800 and DDR3-1600 is 10%, for the second, the difference between DDR2-800 and DDR3-1333 is just over 4%. DDR2-1066 with delays of 5-5-5-18 loses even to DDR3-1333 (7-7-7-20). When the memory controller operates in Ganged mode, the results are slightly reduced, but increasing the NB frequency, as usual, improves performance.
We also note that in this test on an older processor there is practically no difference between DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600, which indicates that even at a frequency of 1333 MHz (and latencies of 7-7-7-20) the memory practically does not limit the potential Phenom II X4 955 BE in this application.
conclusions
It's time to sum up the results of our testing. In general, it can be noted that the difference between the new AM3 platform and the older AM2+ is not very significant. In some tests, these differences tend to zero, but in some applications (especially games and archivers) there is a significant advantage of Phenom II processors in conjunction with DDR3 memory.
Also, these differences are largely due to the power of the processor itself, as we saw from the examples of the Phenom II X3 720 and Phenom II X4 955, because in percentage terms the greater increase from the use of faster memory modules was observed in the second processor. So for the younger dual- and triple-core Phenom II and Athlon II models, the problem of choosing memory is less relevant, since this will have a minor impact on the final performance. However, we would still recommend using a minimum of DDR2-1066 even at normal timings, since in some applications the slow DDR2-800 slightly “limites” the potential of even mid-class processors.
In some applications, DDR2-1066 (5-5-5-18) turns out to be faster than DDR3-1333 (7-7-7-20), but more often they are either on par or DDR3 still has the advantage. Moreover, this pattern manifests itself on all processors; it will simply be more pronounced on more powerful ones. So for older CPUs, it is, of course, more advisable to use the Socket AM3 platform in combination with high-speed DDR3 memory modules.
Regarding the Ganged operating mode, we can say that in most tests it leads to a drop in performance, and where its activation has a positive effect, the gain from this is small. Therefore, it is no coincidence that by default the boards operate in the more efficient Unganged mode. Another interesting thing is that on different platforms, activating this mode has different effects on the final performance. In particular in game The Last Remnant in Ganged mode with DDR2 we see an increase in the result, but with DDR3 there is already a drop. This, however, once again confirms that for a modern multi-core system based on Socket AM3 this mode is contraindicated, and for Socket AM2+ this parameter is less important. By the way, in Ganged mode the stability of the memory subsystem also decreases—during testing we had to slightly increase the voltage on the NB and RAM.
It is also worth noting the benefits of increasing the frequency of the north bridge built into the processor, along with which we are also increasing the frequency of the L3 cache. Even in the nominal operating modes of the considered processors, this has the most positive effect. The boost from overclocking the NB to 400 MHz is sometimes no less effective than moving from DDR2 to DDR3. In percentage terms, this increase in performance was greater on the older processor, and it is logical to assume that as the CPU frequency increases, the gain from overclocking the NB will be even more relevant. So when overclocking the Phenom II, this parameter will play an important role, and in order to fully unleash the potential of AMD processors when increasing their frequency, it is necessary to at the same time increase the NB frequency. But this also requires an increase in the corresponding voltage, which entails an increase in the overall temperature of the processor, and it is not always possible to achieve the same high NB frequencies when overclocking the processor as during its nominal operation. However, we will look at how this affects processor overclocking in practice in one of the following materials...
We thank the following companies for providing test equipment:
- AMD for the Phenom II X4 955 BE processor;
- MSI for 790XT-G45, 790FX-GD70 boards and Phenom II X3 720 BE processor;
- Special educational equipment for memory Kingston KHX1600C9D3K2/4G;
- behind HDD WD3200AAKS.
IntroductionThe position of AMD products in the processor market at present is clearly not enviable: the new K10 microarchitecture, which was relied upon big hopes AMD fans, although it can be considered effective and original, in reality did not allow the company to create processors that can withstand Intel's. Strengths microarchitectures, the main one of which should be called the innate quad-core, accompanied by a common third-level cache for all cores, remained in the shadows due to technological problems that prevent AMD from launching the production of processors with frequencies above 2.5 GHz. As a result, the quad-core Phenom X4 processors that AMD can offer today are uncompetitive not only in the face of the new 45 nm Penryn processors, but even in comparison with the older 65 nm Intel products.
Moreover, the performance gap between the Phenom X4 and Core 2 Quad processors is so large that the prospects for establishing at least parity in performance between these products seem very vague. After all, it is obvious that the 65-nm process technology currently used by AMD will not significantly increase the frequencies of the Phenom. As for the transition to a more advanced 45-nm technology, AMD plans it only for the fourth quarter of this year. However, as expected, the 45-nm Deneb processors, which will replace the 65-nm Phenom, will immediately be able to conquer only frequencies not exceeding 3.0-3.2 GHz. And this, apparently, will not be enough to compete with older quad-core Intel processors, so AMD will have to be content with offering only models that attract primarily with a low price for quite a long time.
Realizing this, AMD is trying to promote the platform concept, promoting not processors themselves, but kits that include a CPU, motherboard and video card. With this approach, the insufficient processor performance can be partially compensated by the good capabilities of the GPU, which is what the company's marketing department is pushing for. However, targeting such kits is more interesting for computer assemblers than for end users, who are accustomed to assembling systems from individual components, matching them to each other based on their own preferences. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that neither the AMD Spider platform, which includes ATI Radeon HD-class discrete graphics, nor the Cartwheel with an integrated AMD 780G chipset arouses much enthusiasm among advanced users.
In such conditions, AMD has to look for other ways to the hearts of customers. The main strategy for the company was to establish for its products low prices. Simultaneously with the release of Phenom X4 9x50 series processors based on a new kernel revision, free from the "TLB problem", prices for quad-core CPUs have been reduced in proportion to their performance relative to competitor offerings. As a result, AMD today offers the cheapest quad-core processors, which, given this positioning, can find a number of adherents. Similar metamorphoses are occurring with the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 line, which is miserably inferior in performance to modern Core 2 Duo processors. As a result, retail prices for the Athlon 64 X2 have dropped so much that these processors are now perceived as nothing more than budget offerings.
Reducing prices is a good way to maintain sales levels. But at the same time, the advanced part of the computer community is losing interest in AMD products, and the company is no longer perceived as a technology leader. Therefore, AMD was forced to find another original way to stir up interest in its products. This is today's announcement of a unique family of Phenom X3 processors with a tri-core structure. Of course, one of the reasons for the appearance of such CPUs was the direct economic benefit for the manufacturer, who gets the opportunity to “attach” defective crystals of quad-core Phenoms by disabling one of the cores on them. But on the other hand, the release of the Phenom X3 can also be seen as an attempt to contrast at least something with the Intel Core 2 Duo processors, which are superior to the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 from any point of view. Positioned as a mid-range option between the Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom X4, the triple-core Phenom X3 is priced just right against Intel's mid-range dual-core CPUs.
It is on this basis that we will look at the three-core new products proposed by AMD. Modern software is increasingly focused on multi-threaded environments, so it is quite possible that the triple-core Phenom X3 could turn out to be interesting offer as an alternative to dual-core Intel processors. Fortunately, we won't have to remain in the dark about the practical properties of the new Phenom X3. AMD sent us one of the first retail processors of the new series, which we invite you to review in detail.
Simple arithmetic of a tri-core processor
The new family of triple-core AMD Phenom X3 processors (also known under the code name Toliman) hardly needs a detailed introduction, since, if you look at it, there is nothing new in it. These CPUs are based on the same semiconductor crystals that are used in the quad-core Phenom X4. AMD simply blocks one of the cores in them, gaining the opportunity to sell defective chips that could not become the basis of “full-fledged” processors. The idea of disabling part of a semiconductor chip in order to be able to sell scraps from the production of high-end processors is not new, but until now, both AMD and Intel have only used disabling part of the L2 cache memory.As you know, Phenom X4 processors differ from Intel quad-core CPUs primarily in that they have a monolithic structure, and are not assembled from a pair of dual-core semiconductor crystals. Therefore, the probability of a defect appearing in one of the Phenom X4 cores is quite high; it certainly exceeds the probability of defects appearing in the upper, third level cache. That is why, first of all, AMD decided to release three-core processors, and not to offer cheap quad-core processors without a third-level cache. Here, AMD also played into the hands of the block structure of the Phenom X4 - the cores in it are combined only at the L3 cache level, which makes it possible to remove one core from use without making any changes to the microarchitecture and semiconductor crystal.
A direct comparison of the characteristics of the Phenom X4 and Phenom X3 only strengthens the confidence in the close relationship of these processors.
As a result, Phenom X3 processors turn out to be completely similar to their older quad-core brothers in everything except the number of cores.
Today's announcement contains references to three Phenom X3 models, with frequencies of 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 GHz. All three processors are based on the new B3 stepping, devoid of the notorious “TLB error”. It should be remembered that AMD also produces Phenom X3 models based on the old B2 stepping, but they are not supplied to the retail market.
To avoid confusion in the enormously expanded range of Phenom processors based on the new K10 microarchitecture, we decided to compile a table that shows all the key characteristics of existing modifications.
Three new triple-core processors are highlighted in the table, which will be the first Phenom X3 distributed through the retail network.
Note that all new Phenom X3 have a heat dissipation level of within 95 W, which means they are potentially compatible with a wide range of Socket AM2/Socket AM2+ motherboards, including those in the lower price category. In fact, to achieve compatibility of new tri-core processors with older boards, only a BIOS update is required.
A little more complicated is the issue of Phenom X3 software compatibility. Since this processor is the first CPU with three cores, it may have to face a number of difficulties caused by some applications' inability to detect and correctly use an odd number of cores. However, these particular problems are unlikely to be widespread. For example, during the tests we did not encounter any obstacles, with the exception of the inoperability of older versions of the SiSoft Sandra diagnostic utility.
However, I would like to draw your attention to a fix for 32-bit systems that appeared a few days ago. operating systems Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista, designed to resolve issues related to the number of available cores being incorrectly determined. Information about this fix can be found on the Microsoft website. This fix fixes potential errors with detecting the number of cores in tri-core processors, but it is not required - even without it, our test Windows Vista Ultimate found all three processor cores perfectly.
Considering that the Phenom X3 is essentially little different from the Phenom X4, the most interesting thing about the new product is the cost. After quite a long period of hesitation, AMD decided to set the following official prices:
AMD Phenom X3 8750 (2.4 GHz) – $195;
AMD Phenom X3 8650 (2.3 GHz) – $165;
AMD Phenom X3 8450 (2.1 GHz) – $145.
Thus, the triple-core Phenom X3 line is positioned by the manufacturer as something between the quad-core Phenom X4 and dual-core Athlon 64 X2. As a result, the new processors logically fit into existing structure AMD offers and are in a competitive position with respect to dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo processors of the Wolfdale family, the prices for which were reduced last Monday.
But can the three cores of the Phenom X3 processors compete with the two cores of the Wolfdale? This is the question we will try to answer in our testing. Well, first, let’s take a closer look at the sample of the three-core CPU received by our laboratory.
Phenom X3 8750
The triple-core Phenom X3 8750 processor looks exactly the same as its quad-core brothers. Only the marking gives it away - “HD8750WCJ3BGH”.
Just as the first digit “9” in the model number designation indicates that this is a Phenom X4, AMD has chosen indices starting with the number “8” to designate tri-core processors. The end of the model number with “50”, as in the case of the Phenom X4, indicates that the processor does not have a TLB error, that is, it belongs to the B3 stepping. The second digit depends on the frequency, and for tri-core and quad-core CPUs this correspondence is the same. In other words, the Phenom X3 8750 shown in the photo is designed to operate at a frequency of 2.4 GHz. This is the oldest model in this line to date.
The processor has three (each core has its own) second-level cache with a capacity of 512 KB and a common 2-MB third-level cache. The northbridge built into the processor operates at 1.8 GHz and provides support for dual-channel DDR2 SDRAM, which can operate in both ganged and unganged modes. Accordingly, the CPU uses the HyperTransport 3.0 bus at 1800 MHz, however, it is nevertheless compatible not only with the new Socket AM2+, but also with older Socket AM2 motherboards.
The Phenom X3's standard voltages are set in the range from 1.05 to 1.25 V. Like their older brothers, the processors support Cool"n"Quiet 2.0 energy-saving technology, which, however, is only available on Socket AM2+ motherboards.
How we tested
As already mentioned, the Phenom X3 series of processors falls into the niche between the Phenom X4 and Athlon 64 X2. Therefore, together with the full Phenom X3 line, we tested the senior representative in the dual-core AMD family and the junior model in the Phenom X4 series.The competitors in testing are dual-core processors of similar cost. After the latest price cuts, these are several junior models of the Core 2 Duo line of the Wolfdale family, including a new product, the Core 2 Duo E7200 processor. In addition, older 65nm representatives also took part in the tests. model range Core 2 Duo.
Below is a detailed description of the test systems.
AMD Platform:
Processors:
AMD Phenom X4 9550 (Socket AM2+, 2.2 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2, 2 MB L3, Agena);
AMD Phenom X3 8750 (Socket AM2+, 2.4 GHz, 3 x 512 KB L2, 2 MB L3, Toliman);
AMD Phenom X3 8650 (Socket AM2+, 2.3 GHz, 3 x 512 KB L2, 2 MB L3, Toliman);
AMD Phenom X3 8450 (Socket AM2+, 2.1 GHz, 3 x 512 KB L2, 2 MB L3, Toliman);
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Socket AM2, 3.2 GHz, 2 x 1 MB L2, Windsor).
Motherboard: ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe (Socket AM2+, AMD 790FX).
Memory: 2 GB DDR2-1066 with timings 5-5-5-15-2T (Corsair Dominator TWIN2X2048-10000C5DF).
Intel Platform:
Processors:
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (LGA775, 3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB L2, Wolfdale);
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 (LGA775, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB L2, Wolfdale);
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (LGA775, 2.53 GHz, 1067 MHz FSB, 3 MB L2, Wolfdale);
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (LGA775, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 4 MB L2, Conroe);
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (LGA775, 2.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 4 MB L2, Conroe).
Motherboard: ASUS P5K3 (LGA775, Intel P35, DDR3 SDRAM).
Memory: 2 GB DDR3-1333 SDRAM with timings 6-6-6-18 (Cell Shock DDR3-1800).
Graphics card: OCZ GeForce 8800GTX (PCI-E x16).
Disk subsystem: Western Digital WD1500AHFD (SATA150).
Operating system: Microsoft Windows Vista x86.
Performance
Overall performance
SYSmark 2007, which we rely on as a test reflecting the integrated performance of processors, demonstrates a rather interesting result. As expected, overall the Phenom X3 is slower than the youngest quad-core AMD processor. However, their performance is not at all higher than the speed of the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, which shows approximately the same result as the Phenom X4 9550. Thus, it turns out that if we draw conclusions based only on the given diagrams, we can say that the existence of a market niche for the Phenom X3 is far-fetched. And these processors may be of interest only in a small number of applications that can load them with work. full program"all three cores.
In light of the above, it is not at all surprising that the Phenom X3 is inferior in speed to Core 2 Duo processors, even to the cheapest models E7200 and E6550. It turns out that in a wide range of tasks, with normal, not narrowly targeted use, even three cores with the K10 microarchitecture cannot withstand two cores with the Core microarchitecture. And the main problem of Phenom processors is, obviously, insufficiently high clock speeds.
However, let’s not rush to final conclusions, but let’s see how the new Phenom X3 performs in various types of applications.
3D games
In anticipation of the final graphs, let us remind you that to study processors in games, we specifically use a low resolution of 1024x768. This allows us to focus specifically on the “game” speed of the CPU and abstract from the influence of the GPU on performance - in the case of using high resolutions The limiting factor would be the GPU.
The performance situation of the Phenom X3 may differ in different games, but nevertheless, two characteristic types of behavior of these CPUs can be distinguished. In those games where performance does not scale well with more than two processor cores (in other words, those that do not fully support quad-core processors), the Phenom X3 results are unsatisfactory. So, in Quake3, Half-Life 2 Episode Two and, oddly enough, Crysis, the new triple-core processors are inferior to the Athlon 64 X2 6400+, not to mention Intel products.
However, there is another group of gaming applications, including Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. Performance in these games is highly dependent on the number of available processing cores, so the new Phenom X3 doesn't look so bad here. At least they are not inferior to the older Athlon 64 X2, and sometimes they are even able to compete with Core 2 Duo processors. Moreover, not only the previous generation, but also with the new Core 2 Duo E7200.
Media Content Encoding
The state of affairs when encoding media content is entirely determined by the quality of optimization of codecs for multi-core architectures. Apple iTunes, which is well optimized for dual-core processors only, runs significantly faster on Athlon 64 X2 and Core 2 Duo based systems. When using the DivX video codec, which has average optimization for multi-threaded environments, the Phenom X3 processors lag behind the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6400+, which has a one and a half times higher frequency, only slightly. However, they still seriously fall short of the speed of dual-core Intel processors. But the popular H.264 x264 video codec, which brilliantly loads processors with a large number of cores, allows you to fully unleash the potential inherent in the Phenom X3. When testing CPU speed in this codec, the three-core new products not only outperform the Athlon 64 X2, but also demonstrate performance at the level of the lower-end Wolfdale.
Final rendering
The final rendering is just an excellent example of tasks with a well-parallelized load. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that in these tests the Phenom X3 family performs exactly as AMD wanted. The performance of the new tri-core processors clearly falls into the gap between the speed of the younger Phenom X4 and the older Athlon 64 X2. At the same time, the triple-core Phenom X3 quite successfully competes with dual-core Core 2 Duo processors, including their 45-nanometer models. The only pity is that this state of affairs is rather an exception to the general rule.
Other applications
Dual-core processors handle Adobe Photoshop better than the Phenom X3. Although many of the filters in this program can parallelize the workload, the results suggest that AMD's triple-core processors are primarily lacking in clock speed.
Rendering video in Adobe Premiere is similar to 3D rendering. Here the Phenom X3 performs quite well.
Archiving to WinRAR is also faster on the Phenom X3 than on the older Athlon 64 X2. But the Wolfdale Core 2 Duo E8000 series processors, which have a more capacious L2 cache, demonstrate much better results.
The popular computer algebra package works much more efficiently on dual-core processors with Core microarchitecture, although it uses multi-cores very well, as can be seen from the superiority of triple-core AMD processors over the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6400+.
The results of testing processors in the popular chess program are another consolation for AMD fans. Yes, there are applications in which Phenom X3 processors can perform no worse than the younger Core 2 Duo, and, if desired, a significant number of such programs can be found.
Overclocking
Although the triple-core Phenom X3 processors are based on the same B3 stepping as AMD's quad-core CPUs, their overclocking capabilities should be examined separately. After all, reducing the number of cores working simultaneously entails a reduction in heat generation, which in theory can open up space for obtaining better overclocking results.It should be noted that the Phenom X3 8750 processor we have, like other CPUs in this line, has a fixed multiplier. Therefore, its overclocking should be done by increasing the frequency of the clock generator. This process is not as simple as we would like. The point is that, as explained in specially dedicated this issue article, this frequency is associated not only with the resulting clock speed of the processor, but also with the frequencies of the north bridge, memory, and HyperTransport 3.0 bus built into the processor. Therefore, when increasing the frequency of the clock generator, we should not forget about the need to reduce the corresponding coefficients and dividers involved in generating the frequencies of the north bridge, HyperTransport bus and DDR2 SDRAM.
For example, by increasing the processor supply voltage to 1.45 V, we were able to increase the clock generator frequency from the standard 200 to 260 MHz while maintaining processor stability. However, at the same time, the multipliers for the frequencies of the north bridge and the HyperTransport bus had to be reduced from the nominal value of 9x to 7x, which made it possible to keep the corresponding frequencies within limits close to the standard ones.
In this state, overclocked to 3.1 GHz, our Phenom X3 8750 processor demonstrated completely stable operation, which was tested using an hour-long run of the Prime 25.5 utility. To remove heat from the overclocked processor, we used a Scythe Mugen (Infinity) air cooler.
It should be noted that the achieved frequency of 3.1 GHz is the best result of overclocking a processor with K10 microarchitecture, obtained in our laboratory. Thus, we can hope that the Phenom X3 processors are more overclocking friendly than their quad-core counterparts. However, final conclusions can be drawn after obtaining more extensive statistics based on testing more than one CPU instance.
Energy consumption measurement
To complete the picture, we measured the power consumption of systems (without a monitor) built on the processors participating in testing, operating in nominal mode. System configurations were kept the same as in the performance tests. Energy-saving technologies Enhanced Intel SpeedStep and Cool'n'Quiet 2.0 have been activated. The load on the processors was created by the Prime95 25.5 program.
As would be expected, triple-core processors turned out to be more economical than their quad-core relatives due to the smaller number of cores. At the same time, due to the low clock frequency, their power consumption is inferior to that of the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6400+. However, the Phenom X3 family is completely unable to compete in terms of efficiency with dual-core Intel processors.
conclusions
AMD Phenom X3 is without a doubt a very interesting processor. If only because this is the first CPU in the industry to have a tri-core design and a monolithic design. And, despite the fact that this was the first time we encountered such a non-standard CPU, its use in a familiar hardware and software environment did not create any serious problems. This processor turned out to be fully compatible with the existing infrastructure, which indicates that AMD has chosen the right strategy for eliminating defects in the production of quad-core Phenom X4.As for the consumer qualities and market prospects of the new product, everything is far from so clear. All the main problems of processors with the K10 microarchitecture could not but affect its tri-core carriers - first of all, the Phenom X3 processors, like the Phenom X4, are sorely lacking in clock speed. However, they are still in a slightly more advantageous situation compared to quad-core CPUs, since AMD positions them as competitors to the dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo.
However, a worthy confrontation between Core 2 Duo and Phenom X3 is not always achieved - but only in those applications in which the performance scales well across more than two cores. Unfortunately, there are very few such applications, so in most cases the Phenom X3 loses to Intel processors of similar cost. However, they exist, and these include, in particular, final rendering, individual video processing and encoding tasks, and some others.
Accordingly, we have to admit that another AMD initiative does not have much chance of success. Phenom X3 may be a good niche product, but it will not be widely popular. Low-end Intel processors belonging to the Wolfdale family, having a similar price, offer higher average performance, lower heat dissipation and power consumption, and significantly better overclocking potential. AMD is unlikely to decide to significantly reduce prices for the Phenom X3, since they are based on a monolithic quad-core semiconductor crystal, the production cost of which is relatively high. To be fair, it should be added that if AMD decides to further reduce the cost of the Phenom X3 series, then these CPUs may well become a worthy alternative to the Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium Dual Core processors.
To what has been said, it remains to be added that the Phenom X3 cannot always be recommended for upgrading the existing fleet of Socket AM2 systems. The fact is that older dual-core Athlon 64 X2 processors in a number of cases are capable of providing better performance, although at higher heat dissipation.
After the breakthrough of the early 2000s, AMD safely returned to its usual state of always catching up and, despite quite interesting and, undoubtedly, advanced technical solutions, does not even try to compete with Intel in terms of sales volumes.
As of mid-2009, the company's share accounts for about 14.5% of the microprocessor market.
At the same time, the once proprietary “features” of AMD chips - for example, 64-bit instruction extensions or a RAM controller built into the processor - have long been used in the chips of their main competitor.
AMD products today occupy two very narrow niches: ultra-budget processors for building economy-class computers and high-performance models offered three to five times cheaper than comparable Intel chips.
This explains the fact that on store shelves you can find AMD processors of various families and generations - from the prehistoric Sempron and Athlon based on the well-deserved K8 architecture for the Socket 939 socket to the ultra-modern six-core Phenom II X6.
Be that as it may, AMD is now relying on the K10 architecture, so we will talk specifically about processors designed on its basis.
These include the Phenom and Phenom II, as well as their budget variant, the shyly named Athlon II.
Historically, the first K10-based chips were the quad-core Phenom X4 (codenamed Agena), released in November 2007.
A little later, in April 2008, the tri-core Phenom X3 appeared - the world's first central processors for desktop computers, in which three cores are located on one chip.
In December 2008, with the transition to the 45-nanometer process technology, the updated Phenom II family was introduced, and in February the chips received a new Socket AM3 connector.
Serial production of the quad-core Phenom II X4 began in January 2009, the triple-core Phenom II X3 in February 2009, the dual-core Phenom II X2 in June 2009, and the six-core Phenom II X2 just recently, in April 2010.
Athlon II - a modern replacement for Sempron - is a Phenom II, deprived of one of its most important advantages - a large third-level cache (L3), common to all cores.
Available in two-, three- and four-core versions.
The Athlon II X2 has been in production since June 2009, the X4 since September 2009, and the X3 since November 2009.
AMD K10 Architecture
What are the fundamental differences between the K10 and K8 architecture?
First of all, in K10 processors all cores are made on a single chip and are equipped with a dedicated L2 cache.
The Phenom/Phenom 2 and server Opteron chips also provide a common L3 cache memory for all cores, the volume of which ranges from 2 to 6 MB.
The second major benefit of the K10 is the new HyperTransport 3.0 system bus with peak throughput of up to 41.6 GB/s in both directions in 32-bit mode or up to 10.4 GB/s in one direction in 16-bit mode and frequencies up to 2. 6 GHz.
Let us remind you that the maximum operating frequency of the previous version of HyperTransport 2.0 is 1.4 GHz, and the peak throughput is up to 22.4 or 5.6 GB/s.
A wide bus is especially important for multi-core processors, and HyperTransport 3.0 provides channel configurability, allowing each core to have its own independent lane.
In addition, the K10 processor is capable of dynamically changing the width and operating frequency of the bus in proportion to its own frequency.
It should be noted that currently in AMD chips the HyperTransport 3.0 bus operates at a much lower speed than the maximum allowable.
Depending on the model, three modes are used: 1.6 GHz and 6.4 GB/s, 1.8 GHz and 7.2 GB/s and 2 GHz and 8.0 GB/s.
The manufactured chips do not yet use two more standard modes - 2.4 GHz and 9.6 GB/s and 2.6 GHz and 10.4 GB/s.
K10 processors integrate two independent RAM controllers, which speeds up access to modules in real-world operating conditions.
The controllers are capable of working with DDR2-1066 memory (models for socket AM2+ and AM3) or DDR3 (chips for socket AM3).
Since the controller integrated into the Phenom II and Athlon II for Socket AM3 supports both types of RAM, and the AM3 socket is backward compatible with AM2+, the new CPUs can be installed on older AM2+ boards and work with DDR2 memory.
This means that when you purchase a Phenom II for an upgrade, you will not have to immediately change the motherboard or purchase a different type of RAM - as is the case, for example, with Intel i3/i5/i7 chips.
Microprocessors with K10 architecture implement a whole set of modernized energy-saving technologies - AMD Cool’n’Quiet, CoolCore, Independent Dynamic Core and Dual Dynamic Power Management.
This a complex system allows you to automatically reduce the power consumption of the entire chip in idle mode, provides independent power management of the memory controller and cores, and is capable of turning off unused processor elements.
Finally, the cores themselves have also been significantly improved.
The design of sampling, branch and branch prediction, and dispatching units was redesigned, which made it possible to optimize core load and, ultimately, improve performance.
The width of SSE blocks was increased from 64 to 128 bits, it became possible to execute 64-bit instructions as one, and support for two additional SSE4a instructions was added (not to be confused with the SSE4.1 and 4.2 instruction sets in Intel Core processors).
Here it is necessary to mention a design defect identified in server Opterons (codenamed Barcelona) and in Phenom X4 and X3 of the first releases - the so-called “TLB error”, which at one time led to a complete cessation of supply of all Opterons of revision B2.
In very rare cases, under high load, due to a design flaw in the L3 cache TLD block, the system could behave unstable and unpredictable.
The defect was considered critical for server systems, which is why the shipment of all released Opterons was suspended.
A special patch was released for desktop Phenoms that disables the defective block using the BIOS, but at the same time the processor performance dropped noticeably.
With the transition to revision B3, the problem was completely eliminated, and such chips have not been found on sale for a long time.
In this article we will talk about choosing the optimal video card for AMD AM3 and FM1 processors:
- Phenom X6 1035T, 1045T, 1055T, 1065T, 1075T, 1090T, 1100T
- Phenom X4 910, 920, 925, 940, 945, 955, 960T, 965, 970, 975, 980
- Athlon II X4 620, 630, 635, 640, 645, 655
- Athlon II X4 631, 641, 638, 651, 651K
Due to the unstable economic situation, many PC users do not want or do not have the opportunity to change the platform, “sitting” on the old one for as long as possible. Therefore, many people face the question of choosing the optimal combination of an old multi-core CPU and a more or less modern video card. We will try to select the most comparable solutions from those available on the market.
Video card for AMD Phenom X6 1035T, 1045T, 1055T, 1065T, 1075T, 1090T, 1100T and AMD Phenom X4 910, 920, 925, 940, 945, 955, 960T, 965, 970, 975, 980
These processors are close in performance to solutions from the AMD FX-4000 and FX-6000 lines. Consequently, older four- and six-core models when overclocked will be able to work in tandem with video cards of the levelAMD Radeon R7 370/RX 460 And NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti. We recommend using the younger ones together with solutions of the levelAMD Radeon R7 360 And NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750.
Video card for AMD Athlon II X4 620, 630, 635, 640, 645, 655, 631, 641, 638, 651, 651K
We recommend using the more productive solutions listed above in conjunction with video adapters of the level AMD Radeon R7 360 And NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750. As for models with low frequencies, somewhat outdated ones are best suited to them. AMD Radeon R7 250/R7 250X And NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 / GT 740.
Introduction
Overclocking has long been the number one tool for enthusiasts to increase system performance without spending extra money. And since motherboard manufacturers (and even CPU manufacturers themselves) have begun to take this market seriously, features and products have emerged that allow any user, be it a beginner or a hardcore pro, to overclock their processors quite comfortably.
But how far can you go? Efficiency has recently become as important a topic as performance, and it's no secret that power consumption skyrockets at high overclocked frequencies when voltage has to be increased to improve stability.
Phenom vs Core 2
AMD's difficult times began when Intel released a line of Core 2 processors in 2006 year. Core 2 Duo processors were far superior to the Athlon 64 X2, and quad-core Phenom, introduced at the end of 2007, could not outperform quad-core Core 2 Quad processors, despite the theoretically superior architecture on a monolithic chip. We specially held core-to-core analysis of all popular AMD models and found that the Phenom Stars architecture was indeed an important step forward, even if not as revolutionary. AMD added in early 2008 Triple-core Phenom X3 processors, which helped the company remain competitive in the mass market, and all this was accompanied by falling prices. The range of processors was quite good, and AMD was really able to provide a nice performance/price ratio, even if Intel came out ahead in terms of performance and efficiency.
Return of AMD Phenom II
Phenom II processors are the top of AMD's portfolio, they have finally allowed AMD to take a stronger competitive position, thanks in no small part to the state-of-the-art 45nm DSL SOI process technology. Idle power consumption has been reduced, and clock speeds can be increased to a point where Phenom II processors perform nearly as well as Intel Core 2 Quad processors. Unfortunately, Intel has already switched to next generation Core i7 architecture, which strengthened its leadership in productivity and efficiency. However, Phenom II processors generally provide similar performance at comparable prices, and Socket AM2+ or AM3 platforms (DDR2 or DDR3) are usually more affordable than Intel 4x chipset lines.
What is the ideal frequency for the Phenom?
We took the current flagship Phenom II X4 940 and ran it at different clock speeds, both lower and higher than stock, to determine the clock speed at which the architecture provides the best balance between performance and power consumption.
AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition (BE)
While there are many AMD Phenom II processor options on the market, we went with the Phenom II X4 940 for several reasons. We didn't want to take on the first generation of Phenom processors because they were still based on AMD's 65nm process, which couldn't compete with the more advanced 45nm Phenom II process in terms of performance and efficiency.
Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition at 3 GHz is the fastest AMD CPU model with an unlocked multiplier, which allows you to reduce it or increase it. This allowed us, in particular, to emulate the Phenom II X4 920 at 2.8 GHz. In the near future, we plan to conduct similar types of tests with the Intel Core i7 920 system. For the Intel platform, we chose the entry-level i7 920 processor to avoid the significantly more expensive high-speed Intel models. In the case of AMD, even the Phenom II X4 940 processor is not that expensive, so such concerns did not arise.
Phenom II models
Phenom II X4 is a modern high-end processor for desktop PCs, which, in many respects, was a consequence of AMD's transition from 65 nm to 45 nm process technology. The L2 cache has increased from 2 MB for Phenom processors to 4 MB (Socket AM3 models) or even 6 MB (Socket AM2+ models).
The die area of all Phenom II models is 285 mm², although the actual cache configuration may vary to increase chip yield. A simple example: a quad-core processor with a faulty core can be modified and sold as a triple-core processor. The following table lists all currently available quad-core Phenom II X4 processors.
| Model Phenom II X4 | Platform | Clock frequency | Number of cores | L2 cache | L3 cache | TDP |
| 940 | Socket AM2+ (DDR2) | 3.0 GHz | 4 | 6 MB shared | 125 W | |
| 920 | Socket AM2+ (DDR2) | 2.8 GHz | 4 | 512 KB per core (2 MB total) | 6 MB shared | 125 W |
| 910 | Socket AM3 (DDR3) | 2.6 GHz | 4 | 512 KB per core (2 MB total) | 6 MB shared | 95 W |
| 810 | Socket AM3 (DDR3) | 2.6 GHz | 4 | 512 KB per core (2 MB total) | 4 MB shared | 95 W |
| 805 | Socket AM3 (DDR3) | 2.5 GHz | 4 | 512 KB per core (2 MB total) | 4 MB shared | 95 W |
The following table shows the currently available tri-core Phenom II X3 processors.
| Model Phenom II X3 | Platform | Clock frequency | Number of cores | L2 cache | L3 cache | TDP |
| 720 | Socket AM3 (DDR3) | 2.8 GHz | 3 | 6 MB shared | 95 W | |
| 710 | Socket AM3 (DDR3) | 2.6 GHz | 3 | 512 KB per core (1.5 MB total) | 6 MB shared | 95 W |
Click on the picture to enlarge.
Flexible CPU selection
AMD processors still use the HyperTransport channel to communicate with the chipset; they also have a dual-channel memory controller built into the chip. AMD has decided to release 45nm Phenom II processors with support for DDR2 and DDR3 memory, while both types are technically based on the same technology.
Socket AM2+ is AMD's latest socket for processors with DDR2 support. Therefore, all AM2+ motherboards will support processors that were designed for the 940-pin socket, as long as the motherboard has support in that model's BIOS.
New processors with an integrated DDR3 memory controller require Socket AM3, which is a modified version of the previous 940-pin socket that supports DDR3 memory. The nice thing here is that you can buy a Phenom II processor for Socket AM3 and install it in a Socket AM2+ system with DDR2 memory. At the same time, you will not be able to make the Phenom II work under Socket AM2+ in Socket AM3, since the latter physically uses only 938 of the 940 pins.
Overclocking and power consumption
All Phenom II processors are fully modern characteristics on energy consumption. Available chipsets include models from AMD and nVidia (AMD 780G, 790GX, 790FX and nVidia nForce 750i, 780, i790i SLI) that require less power than full-featured Intel chipsets - usually because the memory controller is part of the processor, which Improves system power consumption when idle. However, peak power consumption is not very different from Intel platforms.
We were able to overclock several Phenom II X4 processors for Socket AM2+ to almost 4 GHz, but all the processors we visited turned off the Cool"n"Quiet function when operating at 3.8 GHz or slightly higher. This feature reduces the processor frequency and voltage when it is idle, allowing the CPU to run cooler and consume less power. This caused problems with efficiency testing, since the results at 3.8 GHz could not be directly compared to lower frequencies, where Cool"n"Quiet technology worked fine. According to AMD, this behavior is quite justified due to the manual selection of higher multipliers.
Platform: Jetway HA07 Ultra on AMD 790GX chipset
Click on the picture to enlarge.
Many motherboard manufacturers have released different products based on AMD 790GX chipset, but this time we decided to take not the most famous brand. By the way, in the near future we will present a review of motherboards for Socket AM3 based on the 790FX chipset.
The Jetway HA07 Ultra "Hummer" is an enthusiast motherboard that is aimed at ATI CrossFire graphics configurations. The chipset allows the motherboard to work with two x16 PCI Express slots of eight lanes each. Additionally, the 790GX has six additional PCI Express lanes that can be used for expansion cards. Because AMD used the PCI Express 2.0 standard, each lane provides twice the bandwidth of PCI Express 1.1 (250 MB/s per lane in each direction for 1.1, 500 MB/s for 2.0).
Click on the picture to enlarge.
Although the 790GX chipset is aimed at enthusiasts, it includes integrated graphics. HA07 Ultra provides standard VGA and DVI ports, there is also additional Side-Port memory chip, which increases 3D performance by allowing the graphics core to combine shared memory (from PC RAM) and separate Side-Port. After installing a separate graphics card, the integrated graphics core based on the Radeon HD 3300 can be turned off or used in SurroundView mode.
The HA07 Ultra motherboard turned out to be more energy efficient than the other two motherboards we had on hand when we started testing. Of course, the small number of additional components, as well as the six-phase voltage regulator, has a positive impact on power consumption, as other systems required 10-15 W more at idle and under peak load. The Jetway board still provides an UltraATA/133 controller for legacy drives, as well as a floppy drive connector that connects to AMD's SB750 southbridge. Both connectors are located next to four DDR2 memory slots and a connector for connecting a power supply. That is, ordinary cable loops will be enough to connect the drives in the upper compartments of the tower housing.
AMD 790GX chipset diagram. Click on the picture to enlarge.
Jetway also used a heatpipe cooling system for the voltage regulators and the 790GX chipset. And while it's not as massive or huge as some other motherboards, it gets the job done considering the relative efficiency of the platform itself.