AMD Athlon 7750 & 7550 dual core Phenom

[fumble]

AMD took the opportunity to leave the first triple-core processors on the market: the Phenom X3. The aim was to provide processors that Intel could not produce and must come up position between the dual core and quad core of the American giant. Except that the Phenom X3 can barely compete with the Intel dual-core. And again, AMD has struggled to increase in frequency as the processors the highest clocked Phenom in the family to work at 2.6 GHz.

As for dual-core processors, AMD has considerable ground to be filled. Indeed, the current Athlon 64 X2 are all from the old K8 architecture emerged in 2003 with the first Athlon 64. Worse, the best dual core is the AMD X2 6400 + running at 3.2 GHz but engraved in 90 nanometers! The process of recording in 65 nm was not a real success at AMD with latencies up at the controller and cache memory. In addition, the Athlon 64 65 nanometer have never been equipped with 2x1 MB L2 cache as some models engraved in 90 nanometers, but made do with 2x512 KB of L2 cache. If we add to this the "bug" of the entire memory divider that prevents in many cases the memory to operate at the frequency specified, it is fair to say that the Athlon 64 X2 have many flaws deal with Core 2 Duo Intel Pentium Dual Core. It remains for them but as prices reveals our fight processors, even for the same price, they are beaten like an Athlon 64 X2 6000 + outpaced by a Pentium E5200, yet both in the same price area.

It was therefore time AMD wakes up on its "bottom line" aging. This is now done with the arrival of the Athlon 7750 Black Edition and Athlon 7550. It is actually dual core processors based on K10 architecture

[fumble]

Presentation of 7750 and 7550

The new AMD dual core Athlon perpetuate the brand. They could have called Phenom X2 since they are directly derived from the K10 architecture. But like Intel who wished to continue to live the brand Pentium, AMD also wants to continue his qu'Athlon sweet way. The intrinsic reason for this choice are substantially the same in the two skiers: Do not mix levels of performance within the same brand. Thus, the Pentium dual core are in fact Core 2 Duo with less L2 cache and therefore less efficient. Intel have worked hard for its Core 2 brand is synonymous with performance, it's Pentium, which was chosen for the dual core low end. At AMD, the same way seems to have been chosen by wishing the book mark Phenom processors have more than two hearts. The Athlon brand remains a symbol but now the low-end dual core.

Being based on the K10 architecture, the new Athlon retain the characteristics of Phenom, with the exception of the number of cores that pass by two. For the rest, it was entitled to the same socket AM2 +, to the same cache with a level 1 cache of 64 KB per core for data and 64 KB per core for instructions. The level 2 cache is composed of 512 KB per core while the two cores share 2 MB of L3 cache. The bus speed remains at 200 MHz while the HyperTransport link is set at 1800 MHz. Remember, only the high-end versions of Phenom have a link to 2000 MHz HT. Games instructions are the same ie MMX (+), 3DNow !(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, x86-64. Note that these processors are manufactured in Fab36 in Dresden in Germany.

The Athlon X2 BE 7750, for Black Edition, running at 2.7 GHz using a multiplier of 13.5. This is the commercial frequency highest for the K10 architecture since the Phenom X4 9950 running at 2.6 GHz. Like any good Black Edition version that respect, the coefficient is released and thus increase in frequency simply by increasing the ratio. The 7550 operates on its side to 2.5 GHz via a coefficient of 12.5. Other models and frequencies are planned to run as a 7450 which will operate at 2.4 GHz.

[fumble]

Overclocking -Consumption

One remembers the difficulties of the first Phenom to increase in frequency. B3 revisions had to show them more facilities to overclocker. The Athlon BE 7750 for his part was more surprised, and in the right way. Indeed, without increase in voltage supplied to the processor, we validated overclocking with Prime stabilized at a frequency of 3.2 GHz This increase was completed at 3.4 GHz, but this time by increasing the voltage supplied from 1325 volts to 1.45 volts. Beyond that, it was unstable overclocking that despite the high values of voltage at the processor and the motherboard.

Consumption

The measurements were made using a meter and a clamp ammeter. The meter measuring the consumption of the whole configuration and therefore does not take into account the performance of food, a Seasonic M12 500 watts in this case. The latter is 80Plus certified and can at least say that the watts consumed in taking may be multiplied by a factor of 0.80 to get an idea of actual consumption. Taking Ammeter in turn was used to measure the current passing through the son of the connector 8-pin 12-volt plugs into the motherboard. It is through this awareness that the main processor is powered. However, our colleague Canard PC noted that the Nehalem processor would draw power everywhere. It is therefore necessary to take greater account of the meter measures than the clamp Ammeter for these processors is in particular.

Start with the measures in idle, no CPU activity. Note that Speedstep is disabled because it did not work with Core i7 on Intel motherboard. The configurations used are those described in the page dedicated to the configurations.

Unfortunately for them, the Athlon "new" suffer the same disease that the Phenom which they come: a high consumption. Note that the TDP has been announced for 95 watts, as against 65 watts for the Athlon 64 X2 engraved in 65 nanometers, with the exception of 6000 + (89 watts) and more economical versions (45 watts)

[fumble]

Test configurations - Processors tested

For our tests on Intel platform, we used the following configuration:

• Asus Maximus motherboard, Intel X38 chipset
• 2x1024 MB OCZ DDR2-800
• Graphics Card Asus GeForce 8800 GTX
• Hard Drive Western Digital 74 GB
• Hard Drive Western Digital 150 GB
• Samsung DVD Player
• Creative Audio sound card
• Alimentation Seasonic M12 500 watt

Test Configuration AMD

We tested the AMD with the following components:

• Motherboard Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DQ6
• 2x1024 MB OCZ DDR2-800
• NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
• Hard Drive Western Digital 74 GB
• Hard Drive Western Digital 150 GB
• Samsung DVD Player
• Creative Audio sound card
• Alimentation Seasonic M12 500 watt

As you can see, everything is identical with the exception of the motherboard.

CPUs tested

To compare fairly the two new AMD processors should confront the majority of other dual core processors. What we have done. We've included a few quad-core, among the cheapest since the dual core are now, most of the low-end manufacturers of processors. In the dual core, we have included many AMD whose frequency is around 7750 and Athlon 7550. For Intel, we have incorporated many dual core low and mid-range and extreme as the least powerful 45-nanometer dual core, the E5200, and the fastest, the E8600.

The full list of 40 processors compared, 20 and 20 Intel AMD:

• Athlon 64 X2 4600 + (2.4 GHz 2x512-KB L2-65nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 4800 + (2.4-GHz 2x1 MB L2-90nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 4800 + (2.5 GHz 2x512-KB L2-65nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 5000 + (2.6 GHz 2x512-KB L2-65 nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 5200 + (2.6-GHz 2x1 MB L2-90nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 5200 + (2.7 GHz 2x512-KB L2-65nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 5400 + (2.8 GHz 2x512-KB L2-65nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 5600 + (2.8-GHz 2x1 MB L2-90nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 5600 + (2.9 GHz 2x512-KB L2-65nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 6000 + (3-GHz 2x1 MB L2-90nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 6000 + (3.1 GHz 2x512-KB L2-65nm)
• Athlon 64 X2 6400 + (3.2-GHz 2x1 MB L2-90nm)
• Athlon X2 7550 (2.5 GHz-2x512Ko L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Athlon X2 BE 7750 (2.7 GHz-2x512Ko L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Phenom X3 8450 (2.1 GHz 3x512-KB L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Phenom X3 8650 (2.3 GHz 3x512-KB L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Phenom X3 8750 (2.4 GHz 3x512-KB L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Phenom X3 8850 (2.5 GHz 3x512-KB L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Phenom X4 9150e (1.8 GHz 4x512-KB L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Phenom X4 9950 (2.6 GHz 4x512-KB L2-2MB L3-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E4300 (1.8 GHz-2 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E4400 (2 GHz-2 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E4500 (2.2 GHz-2 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E4600 (2.4 GHz-2 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E4700 (2.6 GHz-2 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33 GHz-4 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E6850 (3 GHz-4 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53 GHz-3MB L2-45nm)
• Core 2 Duo E7300 (2.66 GHz-3MB L2-45nm)
• Core 2 Duo E7400 (2.8 GHz-3MB L2-45nm)
• Core 2 Duo E8200 (2.66 GHz 6-MB L2-45nm)
• Core 2 Duo E8600 (3.33 GHz 6-MB L2-45nm)
• Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4-GHz 2x4 MB L2-65nm)
• Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33 GHz 2x2-MB L2-45nm)
• Pentium E2140 (1.6 GHz-1 MB L2-65nm)
• Pentium E2160 (1.8 GHz-1 MB L2-65nm)
• Pentium E2180 (2 GHz-1 MB L2-65nm)
• Pentium E2200 (2.2 GHz-1 MB L2-65nm)
• Pentium E2220 (2.4 GHz-1 MB L2-65nm)
• Pentium E5200 (2.5 GHz-2 MB L2-45nm)

[fumble]

Cinebench 10

Cinebench 10 is directed by a benchmark based on Maxon Cinema 4D software whose purpose is to make a 3D image, ie a motorcycle. The benchmark provides two results: a score expressed as a CPUand the number of seconds it took to configure to make the image. Below is the rendering time, value more precise than the score.

Cinebench is a massively multithread and it makes sense to return to the quad and triple core included in this test. The Athlon X2 BE 7750 is better than Athlon 64 X2 2.9 GHz equipped with 2x512 KB of L2 cache but is of little behind an Athlon 64 X2 5400 + 2.8 GHz him with 2x1 MB L2 cache. The cache size affects the processor performance here and in all, we can say that the newcomer is doing well. The 7550 falls on its side between the two Athlon 64 X2 5400 + running at 2.6 (2x1 MB L2 cache), 2.7 GHz (2x512 KB L2 cache), while its frequency is 2.5 GHz. In short, the new AMD Athlon provide interesting performance gain.

[fumble]

Summary of performance

It's time for the inevitable and always questionable performance summary. Questionable because many people are content to read this graph which is at once everything and nothing. If he can quickly locate a processor in the hierarchy, because it is arbitrary does not reveal the true strengths and weaknesses of a product. This graph does not tell you that AMD processors are not the party in games just as it does not tell you that the K10 architecture is doing well in video encoding. In short, this chart is here because we know that many of you require, but in our case, we urge you to review the results of individual graphs to make your choice depending on your needs and usage of your PC .

There is an Athlon 7750 BE to 2.7 GHz is 16.4% faster than Athlon 64 5200 + old generation, also clocked at 2.7 GHz. This is not a real surprise because on leaving the Phenom, monothreads tests had revealed this fact. Only the powerful Athlon 6400 + 3.2 GHz still engraved in 90 nanometers manages to do better. The 7550 is also well placed compared to the old AMD processors, hard on the heels of the 6000 + 65 nm operating at 3.1 GHz.

[fumble]

Conclusion

The dual core variants of the K10 architecture will make long desired, it is the least we can write. As a reminder, the Phenom X4 was released in November 2007, the Phenom X3 in May 2008 and it will have taken more than a year for the Phenom X2 Athlon X2 based on the K10 architecture is revealed. Various reasons can be mentioned: large stocks of Athlon 64 X2 based on the K8 architecture, will give priority to the Phenom, and so on. Anyway, these new processors are there and provide some performance gain from the "old" Athlon X2. Thus, the Athlon 7750 X2 and 2.7 GHz (the highest frequency achieved on a CPU from the K10 architecture) ahead of the best dual core engraved in 65 nanometers, the 6000 + clocked at 3.1 GHz. Better, the 7550 running at 2.5 GHz closely behind the same Athlon X2 6000 +. This is not the 7750 Black Edition dual core processor the most powerful ever produced by AMD, as this honor is the property of the Athlon 64 X2 6400 + clocked at 3.2 GHz.

These new AMD processors are not bad, far from it, but once again face tough competition for Intel since the release of Core 2 in July 2006 did more than master the subject. It is therefore difficult to advise these processors to a consumer who wants to start a new configuration, especially when one casts an eye on the side of consumption. Finally, the sole interest of these processors is to make a cheap upgrade for owners of motherboards using socket AM2. Hopefully the Phenom II will allow AMD to return more in the race