Compare AMD FM1 and FM2 sockets. AMD Processors for FM1 Platform Is FM2 and
In order to choose the right processor, you need to know what type of socket your motherboard has. A socket is a processor footprint. If you buy a processor with the wrong socket, then it simply won't fit into your motherboard. Therefore, the first step is to find out the type of socket and only then choose a processor according to its technical characteristics. For example, the FM2 processor will only fit the corresponding socket. And under no other. Let's talk about the FM2 socket and the best processors for it. Let's consider the most popular models.
AMD Athlon II X4 750K Black Edition
This FM2 processor is the best in its class. It has very interesting technical characteristics. But the main thing is that it has an unlocked multiplier. This means that it can be easily overclocked. Although it is quite powerful as it is. So, the technical characteristics of this processor look like this. The number of cores is 4 pieces, which work in four threads. The nominal operating frequency is 4 gigahertz. Not bad for a processor that doesn't cost that much. Many of his "classmates" are much more expensive. The processor is made according to the 32 nm process technology and does not have any third-level cache at all. But this is not very good. Nevertheless, our hero can quite compare in performance with many modern "stones". Especially in a state of overclocking.
The processor comes in a black cardboard box, which immediately tells us that this gadget is intended for overclocking. Many AMD FM2 processors lack this useful option. But not this Athlone. This "stone" copes well with high loads, supports high-frequency RAM modules and behaves perfectly when running resource-intensive tasks (demanding games, specialized software for processing graphics and video, and so on).
Customers reviews for AMD Athlon II X4 750K Black Edition
Here the opinions of users are divided. Some owners consider it to be the best processor of all time for the FM2 socket. These processors, by the way, are not so widespread. And others, with crazy persistence, prove that this stone has long become obsolete and it is time to hand it over to scrap. However, the last statement is sinful of excessive radicalism. Undoubtedly, those who believe that this "old man" will still show are right. Its performance is at the level of modern processors in the middle price segment, it is inexpensive and compatible with all modern components. What else do you need to be happy? Not to mention, this is a great budget option for those on a budget.
AMD Athlon X4 860K
This FM2 processor is made on the Kaveri yard and is somewhat different from our previous hero. Mainly by the fact that it is made according to the 28 nm process technology. This technology is slightly newer. Also, this processor does not have an unlocked multiplier, which means that it is in no way intended for overclocking. The maximum clock speed in Turbo mode is 4 GHz. There is still no third-level cache. There is no graphics core either. Which is very good. The processor has to do one task. And there is absolutely no need to spray. This processor has four cores that run on four threads. Standard characteristics for today.
This "Athlone" has sets of almost all instructions and is compatible with almost all modern components. And it costs even less than the previous FM2 processors with an intriguing Black Edition inscription. This is a really budget option that will suit many. The power of this "stone" is enough both for games (but not for the most modern ones) and for multimedia tasks. He can handle almost anything. That is why processors of this line were especially popular in their time. And even now they do not intend to surrender the positions they have won.
Company AMD introduced the second generation of desktop APUs. Chips Trinity are based on the improved Piledriver architecture and also have a powerful integrated video core. Mobile versions of new generation processors from AMD have been offered in notebooks for almost six months. An attractive combination of consumer parameters allowed the company to increase its share in this segment. Let's see if Trinity's desktop options targeting the new platform are as successful. Socket FM2.
What are the new codenamed hybrid processors? Trinity? In the maximum configuration, these chips include a quad-core x86 computing unit with AMD's most advanced architecture at the moment - Piledriver... This is a further development of the Bulldozer architecture, which is used for the fastest AMD FX series chips. In addition, a graphics core is located on the die, which the manufacturer attributes to the Radeon HD 7000 series.
Trinity, although they are the successors of Llano processors, there is practically nothing in common between them. Both the computing part and the graphic part in this case are not just improved, they are fundamentally different. Perhaps the only thing that binds APUs of both generations is the 32nm process technology, which is also used for Trinity. Of course, a more progressive technical process would be preferable here, but the production facilities of GlobalFoundries are not yet ready for the mass production of chips using technology thinner than 32 nm.
The Trinity die is 246 mm² and contains 1.3 billion transistors, while the silicon wafer of the Llano chip is 228 mm² and carries 1.18 billion transistors (after a recent update by the manufacturer). The packing density remained about the same, the area increased by about 8%, while the number of semiconductors increased by 10%. Considering the timing of the development of the 32-nanometer process technology, let's assume that the cost of producing crystals, if increased, is insignificant.
What's new in Trinity? The dual-channel DDR3 memory controller officially supports operation in modes up to DDR3-1866, while it also became possible to use modules with a reduced supply voltage (1.25 V). As you can see, almost half of the crystal is occupied by the graphic part. The integrated GPU has the same architecture as the chips for discrete adapters of the family Northern islands... An important innovation is the AMD HD Media Accelerator video encoding / decoding unit. The functions of the northbridge of the chipset are of course now integrated into the processor. In terms of computing power, Trinity has a pair of dual-core x86 modules. Within each of them, the kernels are partially dependent, since they use some common resources, in particular, the blocks for prefetching instructions and processing real numbers (FP). Each module has a dedicated 2MB L2 cache segment. The cache memory of the third level is not provided here - this is the prerogative of the AMD FX series CPUs. To communicate with external devices, the processor has 24 PCI Express lanes at its disposal. Note the support for HDMI, DisplayPort 1.2 and DVI interfaces.
Trinity processors initially operate at fairly high clock speeds. If Llano chips have just approached the 3 GHz bar, then the older model from the new APU family operates normally at 3.8 GHz, with the ability to accelerate to 4.2 GHz. Trinity received the latest modification of the dynamic auto-acceleration mechanism AMD Turbo Core 3.0, which, depending on the nature of the load, can automatically increase the frequency of the CPU. Each processor model has its own range: from 200 to 600 MHz.
Integrated graphics
Introducing the term APU(Accelerated Processing Unit), the company initially wanted to emphasize the importance of the embedded graphics unit. Trinity integrated graphics core dubbed Devastator, uses architecture VLIW4 which was used for the Radeon HD 6900 of the Northern Islands family. Obviously, the developers have not yet been able to optimize the new GCN (Graphics Core Next) architecture for the needs of the APU, which is used in the GPU for discrete video cards of the Radeon HD 7000 series.
Recall that the graphics part of the Llano chips has the VLIW5 architecture. The compute units that it includes can theoretically perform more operations in parallel than those with the VLIW4. However, in real tasks the latter are more effective. In addition, VLIW4 stream processors can operate at a higher clock speed, all other things being equal. It is rather difficult to draw parallels here, but some quantitative indicators are interesting. In the full version, the Llano graphics core contains 400 computing units, while the Trinity GPU has 384, but in the latter case, the nominal operating frequency of the graphics unit is 800 MHz, and the predecessor has 600 MHz.
The Devastator core includes 24 texture units and 8 rasterization modules. AMD emphasizes that in this case the tessellation processing unit is noticeably accelerated. A hardware unit is dedicated to work with video data AMD HD Media Accelerator, which includes the most advanced UVD3 video decoding module inherited from the Radeon HD 6000/7000 processor. In addition, the processor contains an AMD Accelerated Video Converter video transcoding unit. It is functionally similar to Quick Sync, which Intel uses in its processors.
Overall, the Trinity graphics core has excellent functionality. It boasts full support for DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0, OpenCL 1.1 and DirectCompute 11. At the same time, the new APUs allow you to connect up to four independent display devices, moreover, support for Eyefinity technology is also announced. Also worth noting is the support AMD Steady Video 2.0 which improves the quality of video, helping to get rid of the shake effects caused by hand-held shooting.
Like its predecessors, Trinity processors have the ability to work in the mode Dual Graphics by combining the power of an integrated GPU with a discrete graphics card. However, in this case, we are still talking about entry-level devices from the Radeon HD 6500/6600 lines.
To help the A10 chips, the manufacturer recommends using the Radeon HD 6670, for the A8 and A6 it offers the Radeon HD 6570, while for the A4 - HD 6450. In fact, there is the possibility of using the Dual Graphics mode, but under current conditions such combinations are interesting in cases where the potential owner of a Socket FM2 system already has a video card that can be used as an additional accelerator. The deliberate purchase of an adapter of the required class for use in Dual Graphics mode, although it has the right to exist as a variant of a delayed upgrade, however, in general, it loses to the idea of acquiring a faster graphics adapter, which will cost a little more, but in games it will be noticeably more productive than the proposed bundle.
Piledriver architecture
The Piledriver architecture is an upgraded version of Bulldozer that is used for Zambezi (AM3 +) chips.
Improved branch prediction blocks, data prefetching, increased efficiency of working with L2 cache, increased L1 TLB size, also improved INT and FP load scheduler. In addition, the new F16C instruction sets are now supported, as well as FMA3, which Intel plans to add to its Haswell chips. AVX kits are now available for new APUs, which were not supported by Llano chips. In general, Piledriver does not fundamentally differ from the Bulldozer architecture; it is a modified version with a number of improvements and cosmetic optimizations.
APU Trinity lineup
At the time of the launch of the new platform, the line of chips Trinity includes six models. Two quad-core A10 and A8, and one each A6 and A4. As you can see, the number of x86 units is not reflected in the name of the APU series. At the same time, the dependence of the chip belonging to one or another line can be traced, which is determined by the number of integrated graphics processing cores: A10 - 384, A8 - 256, A6 - 192, A4 - 128. This is another clear example of how the manufacturer wants emphasize the importance of the graphic component.
The flagship of the line - A10-5800K- works at 3.8 / 4.2 GHz, its built-in GPU contains 384 computers and operates at 800 MHz. The L2 cache is 4 MB, and the declared power consumption is 100 watts. The second "ten" has the same characteristics, with the exception of the frequency formula. For A10-5700 the base ones are 3.4 GHz, and the dynamic auto-acceleration limit is 4 GHz. This turned out to be enough to bring the TDP down to 65 W. In A8 models, in addition to the reduced number of processing units of the video core from 384 to 256, its operating frequency is also reduced to 760 MHz. Formulas for x86 blocks: A8-5600K- 3.6 / 3.9 GHz, A8-5500- 3.6 / 3.8 GHz. The single-module A6 and A4 chips, in addition to losing two x86 blocks, have a shared L2 cache of only 1 MB. The number of GPUs reduced to 196 in the case of A6-5400K, and up to 128 - at A4-5300.
As for the cost of new APUs, Trinity chips are actually in the same price segment as their predecessors - $ 50-130. At the same time, the pricing system is interesting. Both A10s are priced at $ 122 by the manufacturer. Both the model with an unlocked multiplier and a chip with a lower clock speed and a locked CU, which nevertheless has a TDP of 65 W, instead of 100 W for the flagship, have one recommended price. The situation is exactly the same with the APUs of the A8 line - both models are offered at the same price of $ 101. For some, higher performance has value, for others, more economical options are preferable. For both, suitable processors will cost the same price.
As is the case with Llano processors, as well as devices from a competitor, models with the "K" index have an unlocked multiplier. It is curious that now the most affordable model with such an opportunity costs only $ 67, while the price of the previous generation APU with a free multiplier started at $ 80. However, the A6-3670K is a quad-core model, while the A6-5400K is equipped with only one module with a couple of dependent modules.
Socket FM2 will also have graphics-disabled processors that will join the Athlon line of chips. Taking into account the general concept of APU, it is obvious that separate crystals will not be produced for such models (although, given the area occupied by the GPU, it would make sense), for such processors, first of all, chips with certain problems in the graphics part will be used, and if there are fewer of them than the market demands, then full-fledged crystals with a deactivated GPU will also be used.
Socket FM1 and Socket FM2 compatibility
Unfortunately for the owners of systems with hybrid chips of the first wave, the new APUs have neither direct nor backward compatibility with the Socket FM1 platform. The processor socket and, accordingly, the legs on the chip visually have a minimal difference (905 vs. 904), but the different arrangement of the "keys" does not even allow installing Trinity into the old socket.
(on the left - APU Trinity, on the right - APU Llano)
AMD has been giving evasive answers to questions about the compatibility of FM2 and FM1 sockets for quite a long time, so as not to indirectly reduce the demand for processors for the latter. This is no longer necessary. Considering that the new APUs fundamentally differ from their predecessors at the architectural level, it is not surprising that they have their own power subsystem features that were not taken into account in Socket FM1. It was this fact that forced AMD to change the platform.
Chipsets
Despite the fact that Socket FM1 and Socket FM2 are incompatible with each other, the chipsets used on the platforms of the previous generation are quite suitable for the new one. Chips AMD A55, as well as AMD A75 we will see in Socket FM2 motherboards. In general, there is nothing to be surprised at. Considering that the key functions of chipsets are taken over by central processors, their role in modern platforms is largely reduced to servicing peripheral devices. Here, however, innovation does not happen very often. If the functionality of AMD A55 already has certain claims (lack of SATA 6 Gb / s), then AMD A75 cannot be called outdated. The latter became the industry's first chipset with an integrated native USB 3.0 controller. And the rest of the "body kit" is quite up to par.
To brighten up Socket FM2's announcement, AMD has also unveiled a new chipset that will be used for this platform - AMD A85X... One of its key differences from the A75 is the ability to split the PCI-E x16 bus into two devices (x8 + x8), and, as a result, the ability to create CrossFire configurations with a pair of discrete video cards. In addition, the A85X supports 8 rather than 6 SATA 6 Gb / s ports and allows you to create disk arrays RAID 5. It also provides FIS-Based Switching channel separation. In terms of support and configuration of the USB bus, there are no changes: 4 USB 3.0 ports, up to 10 USB 2.0 ports and up to two USB 1.1 ports.
The Socket FM1 platform did not provide an opportunity to use two graphics adapters in the system. Such configurations are the lot of the rather keen gamblers or experienced crunchers. Obviously, in the case of Socket FM2, AMD wants to make the most universal platform that could interest users with different needs in terms of performance and functionality.
Upgrade prospects
Considering the experience with the release of the first generation APU platform, AMD hastened to assure potential buyers of new solutions that Socket FM2- this is serious and for a long time. At least one more generation of hybrid chips will use this connector, and accordingly, they will be able to be installed on motherboards that are now on sale.
The lack of upgradeability and the very short lifespan of Socket FM1 are important reasons for the generally restrained enthusiasm for the previous generation platform. Yes, one can agree that this is not the segment in which the issue of modernization is paramount. However, for users who pay money for a new solution, the prospect of an upgrade is often important even if in reality the need for it does not arise until it becomes completely obsolete. Socket FM2 should be fine in this respect. It will remain relevant for at least 2-3 years.
All motherboard manufacturers have already presented their solutions with Socket FM2 connectors. It is curious that vendors have focused on models with different chipsets. Someone presented a whole set of devices based on the most affordable AMD A55 and several boards based on the top-end AMD A85X, without attracting the A75 at all, while someone, on the contrary, relied on the latest chipset, diversifying their proposals based on it as much as possible. All this suggests that the range of devices for Socket FM2 will be very wide, so it will be easier for users to choose a device in accordance with their requirements. As for the prices, in our opinion, the range here will be only slightly wider than in the case of motherboards for Socket FM1 - $ 50–120.
AMD A10-5800K processor
The top model of the new Trinity APU line got to us for testing - AMD A10-5800K.
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4
To study the Socket FM2 platform, we used an older model in the current line of motherboards from Gigabyte - GA-F2A85X-UP4 based on the new AMD A85X chipset.
The board meets the latest specification Ultra Durable 5, assuming the use of high-quality energy-efficient components. Eight-phase power stabilizer (6 + 2). The power circuit uses powerful IR3550 assemblies as well as ferrite core chokes. A digital controller is used to control the VRM parameters.
The layout of the expansion card slots is optimal. Three PCI-E x16, the same number of PCI-E x1 and one PCI. The latter does not require an additional controller, since support for this bus is still implemented in AMD chipsets. Considering the number of PCI Express lanes, the nuances of using slots cannot be avoided. The first slot works in full speed mode by default. When using two video cards, the first and second slots are switched to x8 + x8 mode. The third full-format PCI-E x16 has a bandwidth of x4, while, if the nearest PCI-E x1 is involved, the lower PCI-E x16 will also provide data transfer rates at the x1 level. Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 allows you to fully realize the advantages of the A85X chipset - the model allows you to create a configuration with two video cards based on AMD chips that will work in CrossFireX mode.
On board Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 there is a gentleman's set of overclockers - Power, Reset, Clear CMOS buttons, as well as a status LED. The board is expected to be equipped with two BIOS chips, and as a UEFI shell, a graphical version of the 3D BIOS is used, conceptually already well known to us from previous motherboards from the manufacturer.
Of the interesting features of the model, we note the technology Dual Clock Gen... The board has a microcircuit with an additional clock generator (the main one is in the chipset). According to the manufacturer, it allows you to achieve stable operation at higher bus clock speeds (~ 135-150 MHz), which may be of interest to owners of APUs with locked multipliers who want to boost their processor. Although, of course, given AMD's pricing policy for Trinity chips, enthusiasts should initially look towards models with the “K” index.
The board has a full range of video outputs: DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort and D-Sub. In this case, you can simultaneously connect up to three display devices with any combination of interfaces. Note that the DVI port operates in Dual-Link mode, allowing you to use monitors with resolutions up to 2560 × 1600.
The disk subsystem will allow you to connect 8 SATA 6 Gb / s drives: seven internal and one using eSATA. As for the peripherals, the user has six USB 3.0 ports. Four of them are implemented using the chipset, for two more, an additional Etron EJ168 controller is used.
On the whole, the board leaves a pretty good impression. A decent set of functions for an older solution, nothing superfluous and at the same time a good start for the future.
Performance
To assess the possibilities AMD A10-5800K, we have selected worthy opponents for him. First of all, it is the processor AMD A8-3850... This chip differs from the older model of the previous generation APU line (A8-3870K) only with a 100 MHz lower clock frequency and a locked processor multiplier, while the integrated graphics part is used with the maximum performance - Radeon HD 6550D. A model of the same price category is presented from the main competitor - a dual-core processor Intel Core i3-3220 from the new line of 22nm Ivy Bridge chips. First of all, let's check how the CPU block works.
The performance of the computing part of Trinity is on average slightly higher than that of Llano (+ 5-10%), although, given the noticeable architectural differences, the difference may vary depending on the applications used. In some cases, a first-generation APU with four full cores may even be faster than a pair of dual-core modules operating at a significantly higher frequency. In applied tasks, Trinity is not lost against the background of dual-core Intel Core i3, offering quite decent performance for its price. In single-threaded tasks, the Intel processor will definitely have the advantage, the phenomenal efficiency of the Intel Core architecture makes itself felt. But in multi-threaded tasks, the number of computational units decides a lot, and here AMD's quad-core CPUs have an advantage. Of course, Intel processors with the same number of cores are even more productive, only they cost significantly more.
During the test of the new APU, we also decided to evaluate the effectiveness of the bundle. CPU + GPU in applied tasks, using the Musemage graphics editor for these purposes, which uses the resources of the graphics core to perform various operations. The list of stages included the SVPMark benchmark, which also knows how to connect graphics for video processing.
The range of programs interspersed with heterogeneous computing is gradually expanding. Moreover, this is not only synthetic software for tests, but also applied applications. The pace, of course, leaves much to be desired, but it is hoped that such developer initiatives will be encouraged in every possible way by hardware manufacturers. This is the rare case when the interests of both competitors coincide. Intel also places more emphasis on the performance and capabilities of its integrated video with each successive architectural iteration. The Ivy Bridge chips have noticeably excelled here in comparison with their predecessors, and in the expected Haswell, the graphics core should receive an even more significant performance gain. In the meantime, AMD has noticeably stronger positions here.
In 3D synthetics, Trinity has a very solid performance gain of 40–45%. Of course, the increased performance of the x86 block is also taken into account in the overall standings, but this is not a bad thing. 6000 points in 3DMark Vantage is almost the level of the Radeon HD 6570, that is, a discrete graphics card, which is now offered for $ 50-60. The performance of Intel HD Graphics 2500 looks much more modest against the background of AMD's built-in devices.
Intel offers separate processor modifications equipped with Intel HD Graphics 4000. In the case of dual-core models in the Ivy Bridge line, this is the Core i3-3225. It also has a working clock speed of 3.3 GHz, like the Core i3-3220, but it is equipped with a full-fledged graphics module with 16 computational units (the HD Graphics 2500 has only six), although it costs $ 20-25 more. At the time of preparation of the material, we did not have such a model, however, in order to include in the review not only the results of Intel HD Graphics 2500, but also the indicators of the most powerful integrated graphics solution from Intel at the moment, we used the Core i7-3770K. It only appears in gaming tests with embedded video. This will allow a more balanced assessment of the current position and potential of the integrated GPUs of both companies.
In real games, the A10-5800K is again very confidently ahead of the A8-3850. The advantage is no longer as great as in the case of Futuremark's tests, but an increase of 25–35% can also be considered an excellent result. In addition, an average 30 fps at a resolution of 1920 × 1080 already allows not only viewing pictures in not the most simple games.
Intel's solutions are expected to be less rushed, especially in the case of a lightweight GPU. It would seem that Intel HD Graphics 4000 has only just managed to remotely approach the Llano performance, when Trinity chips again make this mission impossible. Hopefully, with the release of Haswell, there will be some intrigue here again.
Integrated video capabilities are heavily dependent on the performance of the memory subsystem. Let's see how in the case of the A10-5800K RAM bandwidth affects game performance.
If we compare AMD processors under such conditions, then, as we see, in most cases, the A10-5800K has a slight advantage (2–5%). Mafia II, in which the system with the new APU received a 10% increase, can rather be considered an exception. In addition, the opposite situation is possible, as evidenced by the results in Lost Planet 2, where the A8-3850 outperformed the newcomer by almost 5%. However, in any case, the rivalry is only between AMD chips. The results shown by a PC with a dual-core Core i3-3220 processor are beyond their reach. The gap from the pursuers is 7-18%. Even in spite of the smaller number of computational units, the dual-core Ivy Bridge chip turns out to be extremely efficient in games, and even a doubled number of computational units cannot help AMD processors. On the other hand, the difference does not look depressing and the main weather here is done by a discrete video card.
In general, the increase in computing performance Trinity is relatively small and is on average at the level of 5-15%. Despite the fact that full-fledged Llano cores in some cases are still preferable to dual modules, due to internal improvements in the architecture, as well as higher frequencies, Piledriver-based chips manage to outperform their predecessors. The possibilities of the integrated graphics are more pleasing. The 30% advantage over its predecessor, which before Trinity was a kind of benchmark in terms of the capabilities of the integrated GPU, is encouraging.
Energy consumption
After gaining a general idea of the performance of the Trinity APU, we were also interested in assessing the power consumption level of the new AMD processors. The declared TDP parameter for the A10-5800K is 100 W, let's look at the real performance in typical tasks.
During the load on the computational units (rendering in Cinebench), the consumption of Llano and Trinity is approximately at the same level. But the increase in the power of the graphics core did not pass without a trace. In games, where it is the GPU that is to a greater extent loaded, the power consumption of the A10-5800K is 18 W higher than that of its predecessor. The manufacturing process remains the same, but higher clock frequencies make themselves felt. At the same time, it should be noted that in idle mode, in which the processor is often found most of the time, the energy efficiency of new APUs is higher. However, here it is worth making an allowance for the fact that different motherboards are used for both processors, which can affect the absolute performance.
The dual-core Intel Core i3 generally demonstrate exemplary efficiency. The CPU consumes a minimum of energy for computational tasks, but when evaluating performance in games, one should take into account the significant difference in the performance of solutions.
Outcomes
Platform Socket FM2 and processors Trinity are quite an interesting option for building powerful enough multimedia PCs. Compared to its predecessors, the performance of compute units with the Piledriver architecture has not increased significantly, while the capabilities of integrated graphics are improved by a third, reaching the performance of discrete entry-level graphics cards. At the moment, this is a serious advantage of solutions from AMD. At the same time, the range of Trinity chips is exactly the same as that of Llano. Considering the balanced price, they will look very organic as part of inexpensive universal solutions “for everything”. And although recently mobile systems have been increasingly purchased for such tasks, new APUs in the desktop version will also find their buyers.
All motherboards with FM2 + and FM2 connectors are fully compatible with Socket FM2 processors(AMD Trinity and Richland, APU Ax-5000 series. Ax-6000 and AMD Athlon X4 7x0 / X2 3x0) and CPU with Socket FM2 +. But processors with Socket FM2 + (AMD Kaveri Ax-7000 and Athlon X4 8x0) can be installed only on motherboards with the same socket, but they cannot be run on FM2 boards.
Specially Socket FM2 + motherboards were developed for AMD Kaveri solutions based on AMD A58, A68, A78 and A88 chipsets. They remain compatible with Socket FM2 processors, so we recommend purchasing them for a possible further upgrade (if you already decided to go this way).
Is it worth building a computer on Socket FM2 +?
Yes, is it worth doing such things at all? It's May 2016, with Intel releasing high-performance Skylakes, and AMD preparing to unveil brand-new AMD Zen and APU Excavators for Socket AM4 in the fall. The new platform should be some kind of revolutionary step, as marking time has led AMD to surrender its position in the market for processors and video cards. Therefore, we do not recommend buying those processors that are being sold now, since the competition towards the end of the year will be able to dot the i's, and also lower the price tags to the proper level. If you really want to update your desktop in the near future, and in the future, replacing the processor with a more powerful one is not included in your plans, then you can take a closer look at Socket FM2 +. But we are waiting for AMD Zen ...
Every time we buy an AMD-based computer, we ask ourselves which processor and socket to choose? Especially now that AMD changes them almost every year. Will there be a prospect of replacing the processor in the future and what is the old processor good for? It is also important to know when there is a bunch of old hardware with different performance. And you need to assemble a computer of tolerable performance out of all this. In this table, you can see that the range for creativity is decent. Especially overclockers and gamers have a lot of overclocking iron. And it makes sense to rummage in the mezzanine and collect, for example, a computer for the dacha, or for a younger brother / sister.
| Cpu | motherboards | ||||||
| AM2 | AM2 + | AM3 | AM3 + | FM1 | FM2 | + - Compatible; - Theoretically compatible, but compatibility in each specific case must be checked on the website of the motherboard manufacturer; - - Absolutely not compatible. |
|
| AM2 | + | + | — | — | — | — | |
| AM2 + | + | — | — | — | — | ||
| AM3 | + | + | — | — | |||
| AM3 + | — | — | — | + | — | — | |
| FM1 | — | — | — | — | + | — | |
| FM2 | — | — | — | — | — | + | |
It is clear from the table that, unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, sockets FM1 and FM2 are absolutely incompatible. Here you need to choose whether to buy a more expensive motherboard and a budget processor, or build a powerful PC, but on the previous socket. In my opinion, the solutions are equivalent. For example, you have purchased a powerful computer on an outgoing socket, it does not matter, you will be using it for several years. Although if you assemble a PC on a new socket, there is a prospect in a year to install a CPU more powerful and more economical.
Historical study of the company's first integrated platform
Experience shows that articles devoted to testing "old" (by the standards of the computer market) systems are usually no less popular than reviews of "hot" new products. And no wonder: even when their owners are no longer satisfied with the existing level of performance, it is still interesting to compare it with the demonstrated new computers - at least in order to understand what is worth the transition (and whether it is worth it). It is naturally impossible to test absolutely everything released by manufacturers at least over the past five years, but some iconic processors are quite. Especially when they themselves are interesting as stages in the development of the industry or allow conclusions to be drawn about some other products. In particular, that is why we decided (since the opportunity presented itself) to repeat one test of the year before last, but using modern software. Yes, yes, we will talk again about the AMD FM1 platform.
Why go back to her? Firstly, despite its short life, it was, one might say, a turning point in the development of the market: this is the first platform whose integrated graphics turned out to be implemented not according to the principle of "what was", but really suitable for (albeit limited) gaming use or "Non-graphical computing". In 2011, it was fresh and relevant - recall that the then Intel proposals supported the technologies already existing in discrete GPUs only extremely limitedly. AMD, on the other hand, has implemented full functionality and performance at the level of junior discrete video cards of the same year, and not some distant past. Actually, even later, the competition in performance continued to remain only in-house - especially if we consider the budget segment, where FM1 could fully replace only FM2, and later FM2 +, but not the updated LGA1155 or LGA1150. Last year, however, processors with a more powerful GPU were released for the latter than in any AMD APU, but they also cost significantly more. What about budget processors for the latest LGA1151? Something is possible, but for this it is desirable to compare the solutions of both companies directly and on equal terms.
The processor component of the first AMD APUs is also interesting in its own way, albeit archaic: it goes back to the Athlon II of 2009. Despite their venerable age, such processors are still used by many, so they are also worth testing. But doing this, in fact, is optional. As earlier tests showed, the performance of the A4-3400 is roughly equal to the junior Athlon II X2 215/220, while the analogue of the A8-3870K is the older processors on the same die, already sold under the Phenom II X4 840/850 brand. Moreover, the correspondence in this case is almost complete: the same number of cores similar in microarchitecture (and, accordingly, in supported technologies) allows us to count on the fact that when the software changes, processors will still behave in a similar way. So after testing the two mentioned processors for FM1, we will get an estimate of the performance range of budget processors for AM3. And accurate enough. And also Intel processors for the LGA775 platform fall into the same range - somewhere from Pentium E5x00 to Core 2 Quad Q9500. Here the comparison, of course, is more crude, but also worthy of attention.
In general, no matter how you look at it, it is worth spending some time on the very first generation of AMD APUs. Today we will deal with this.
Testbed configuration
| CPU | AMD A4-3400 | AMD A6-3500 | AMD A8-3870K | AMD A8-7650K |
| Kernel name | Llano | Llano | Llano | Kaveri |
| Prospect technology | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Core frequency std / max, GHz | 2,7 | 2,1/2,4 | 3,0 | 3,3/3,8 |
| Number of cores (modules) / threads | 2/2 | 3/3 | 4/4 | 2/4 |
| L1 cache (sum), I / D, KB | 128/128 | 192/192 | 256/256 | 192/64 |
| L2 cache, KB | 2 × 512 | 3 × 1024 | 4 × 1024 | 2 × 2048 |
| L3 cache, MiB | - | - | - | - |
| RAM | 2 × DDR3-1600 | 2 × DDR3-1866 | 2 × DDR3-1866 | 2 × DDR3-2133 |
| TDP, W | 65 | 65 | 100 | 95 |
| Graphics | Radeon HD 6410D | Radeon HD 6530D | Radeon HD 6550D | Radeon R7 |
| Number of GPs | 160 | 320 | 400 | 384 |
| Std / max frequency, MHz | 600 | 433 | 600 | 720 |
| Price | - | - | - | T-12650703 |
For the above reasons, we are most interested in two processors, but we will test three (since they already exist), adding the A6-3500 to the list of subjects. It is also interesting in its own way, because it occupied a special position in the model line: a tri-core (the only one of all) with a good (albeit not the best) GPU, TDP 65 W and massively available (unlike exotic quad-cores for this platform with such a thermal package). And again, in terms of evaluating performance in games, at least some We need A6, but we don't have others.
First of all, we will compare these three with the A8-7650K: this is a much more modern and serious solution from the company, but the slowest of the newer generations of processors we tested. Over time, we plan to test, if possible, cheaper offers for FM2 + (fortunately, this platform still retains quite good positions in this segment), but so far they are not there - we will limit ourselves to an estimate from above: the old A8 versus the new one.
| CPU | Intel Celeron G3900 | Intel Pentium G3260 | Intel Pentium G4500T |
| Kernel name | Skylake | Haswell | Skylake |
| Prospect technology | 14 nm | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency std / max, GHz | 2,8 | 3,3 | 3,0 |
| # Of cores / threads | 2/2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| L1 cache (sum), I / D, KB | 64/64 | 64/64 | 64/64 |
| L2 cache, KB | 2 × 256 | 2 × 256 | 2 × 256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| RAM | 2 × DDR3-1600 / 2 × DDR4-2133 | 2 × DDR3-1333 | 2 × DDR3-1600 / 2 × DDR4-2133 |
| TDP, W | 51 | 53 | 35 |
| Graphics | HDG 510 | HDG | HDG 530 |
| Number of EU | 12 | 10 | 23 |
| Std / max frequency, MHz | 350/950 | 350/1100 | 350/950 |
| Price | T-13475848 | T-12649809 | T-12874617 |
Plus three Intel processors: a modern Celeron and two Pentiums - one is just as modern, and the second is already a little outdated, but processors for the LGA1150 platform are still popular. Why did you choose Pentium G4500T? We need some kind of Intel processor with a GT2 video core (which has now come to the Pentium), but the older G4520 is an obvious overkill, since it often outperforms even modern A10 in terms of processor performance. So we decided to take a slower model, even an energy efficient one - in this parameter, AMD and Intel's proposals have already diverged so much that it makes no sense to directly compare them anyway.
Testing technique
The technique is described in detail in a separate article. Here, we briefly recall that it is based on the following four whales:
- Methodology for measuring power consumption when testing processors
- Methodology for monitoring power, temperature and CPU load during testing
And the detailed results of all tests are available in the form of a complete table with the results (in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. In particular, this applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (like last year, a laptop based on the Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and SSD, with a capacity of 128 GB) and is grouped according to the areas of application of the computer.
iXBT Application Benchmark 2016
Four "full" cores of the A8-3870K still allow it to compete with entry-level dual-core Intel processors in these programs, but they are already slower than a couple of dual-thread modules of modern solutions for FM2 +. The successes of the rest of the subjects, of course, are much more modest. And the most noteworthy is that the A4-3400 is already about twice as slow as the Celeron G3900. What's wrong with that? Both processors are commonplace dual-core models without any SMT technologies and operating at almost the same frequency, but differ by half. So, just counting the cores does not say anything about performance even in a multi-threaded environment: the level of old dual-core processors (recall that the A4-3400 is also comparable to Athlon II X2 or Celeron / Pentium for LGA775) is about half that of modern ones. But we have not taken the oldest model yet - the first representatives of this class (such as Athlon 64 X2 or Pentium D) are even slower. And the first quad-core processors only roughly correspond to modern dual-core ones, which also gives food for thought.
Moreover, in those conditions when they are unable to "turn around at full strength" - as in Photoshop, for example. Note that in this group of applications, generally speaking, both modern Celeron and Pentium do not shine for many reasons. But they "do not shine" against the background of their peers, and not at all representatives of outdated architectures.
Single-threaded (mostly) application, where the new AMD microarchitectures do not look the best. The old ones are even more convincing to some extent - 3870K almost caught up with 7650K, despite a significantly lower clock frequency. But this has long been a struggle in the "basement", so you can not pay much attention to it: it works - and okay.
Audition is a little more loyal to multi-core processors, although in principle this does not change anything - only A4-3400 looks even worse in the end than in the previous case.
But in a simple multithreaded integer, the old A6 and A8 are still not bad - despite their very venerable age, they can somehow compete with budget processors. But if there are only two cores (as in all A4) or three low-frequency ones (feature of the A6-3500), nothing good comes of it. As expected.
Due to the lack of shared cache memory, "atlon-like" and "during life" did not shine in this kind of tasks, but, nevertheless, the older models, as we see, and now can compete at least with Celeron. The younger ones (not having a head start in the number of cores, which affects the packaging time) behave worse, but it cannot be said that they are completely awful.
As part of AM3, the company provided its chipsets with support for the SATA interface, which is also preserved in the FM1 disk controllers, so that in principle processors for the latter platform can normally "load" a fast solid-state drive with work, which is almost as good as modern devices. In more complex scenarios, nuances are possible, but from the point of view of ordinary household use, no problems arise.
As we have already noted, this program does not treat "virtual multithreading" technologies very well, which played a bad joke with the new AMD A8: it turned out to be almost indistinguishable from the old one. However, from the point of view of today, the computing capabilities of either one or the other, and even more so for junior processors for FM1, are generally low, so "serious work" is not their strong point. But they cope with the task. Slowly but surely.
So, what do we have in the bottom line? Even the A8-3870K, on the whole, is comparable only to modern Celerons. Of course, there are cases when it looks more or less good against the background of the latter, thanks to the presence of four cores, but it also happens that quantity It is not possible to use it, but with the quality everything is clear. It's more funny here, however, not this, but the fact that AMD's progress in improving integrated platforms turned out to be almost worse than that of Intel, although it is most often accepted to criticize the latter company. The A8-7650K, of course, is not the fastest processor in the family, but even from the Athlon X4 880K with a discrete video card and 16 GB of memory, we got only 129.5 integral points - already the A8-3870K gave out only 20% less. Moreover, this is not at all the top segment - even initially, the processors were positioned approximately as competitors to the Core i3. The latter, we recall, grew one and a half times, so they left to fight on other fronts. Mostly on their own or with higher-end Intel processors from earlier years. But "APUs" have remained practically at the same level in terms of processor performance, despite the change in architecture and other improvements. But perhaps in other areas the progress was more noticeable?
Energy consumption and energy efficiency
Actually, it is clearly noticeable - for the sake of which everything was started: the faster A8-7650K consumes energy much more carefully than the A8-3870K. Moreover, we note that the technical processes are in principle comparable: the processors for the FM1 were the first to use the 32 nm technical process, and it was only possible to improve it by one step. And a small one: Intel immediately switched from 32 to 22, and now to 14 nm, and AMD has mastered only the transition from 32 to 28 nm. Therefore, now there is no direct competition between companies. But do not forget that AMD also managed to somewhat limit the needs of its devices - it was even worse before.
True, of course, against the background of what Intel has achieved, all the successes are too lost. But they did something - it means they are already great. The first APUs were not only slow, but also very ineffective. For comparison, the Core i3-2120, even in a system with a discrete video card (which, as we know, only spoils the results), had an “energy efficiency” indicator of 2.15 points, that is, more than one and a half times higher than that of “peers” »Of the A8 family. But so far we practically did not touch on the graphics, which were very weak in the early Intel processors, and AMD integrated platforms were mainly purchased for it. Let's see what will do now.
iXBT Game Benchmark 2016
Usually, in our articles, we present the results of only those games with which at least one of the participants can cope with at least one resolution. In this case, we decided to move away from this practice, since we initially have an obvious favorite in the form of the A8-7650K, to which all the others are not competitors. Therefore, we will consider in detail only those games that the A8-3870K can somehow cope with - there are not so few of them.
For example, "tanks" that are no longer the newest Intel processors can cope with in the minimum settings mode. When using the same video cards, they also turn out to be the winners - because of the high "single-threaded" performance. But the power of the integrated graphics is still different, which leaves its mark. In particular, in FHD mode, even the old A8-3870K easily defeats all Intel processors with GPU GT1. Moreover, even the low-frequency A6-3500 in the same conditions outperforms the most modern Celeron, and, moreover, Pentium for LGA1150. A4-3400 cannot accomplish such "feats", but it can be played on it too. And even trying to do it in the "full" resolution mode - peers from Intel were not capable of that.
The situation with the "ships" is much worse, however, on the whole, the older models for FM1 cope with them better than the modern Celerons, not to mention the "previous" Pentiums. The latter are completely inferior to the younger A6. Pentium G45x0 is faster, of course, and how many years newer. In general, only the A4-3400 unambiguously passed its positions, but no one doubted it - even during his lifetime he belonged to the very budget segment.
That new Celeron, that slightly older Pentium in this, to put it mildly, not a new game, if they can compete with anyone, so only with the A4-3400. And in order to somehow catch up with the A8-3870K, representatives of the G45x0 family are already needed. So far like this. That pales a little, except perhaps against the background of the new A8, but the new ones - after all, we are studying processors five years ago (if anyone has forgotten).
A8-3870K nominally coped with the game in HD resolution - Pentium G4500T did the same. It is clear that it does not matter will not be enough, but more - for processors for FM2 +, for example. And it looks very funny Pentium G3260, announced in early 2015, but never managed to catch up with the youngest A6 in 2011 :)
In this case, everything looks a little better for Intel, but only if you do not remember the difference in several years. AMD also did not stand still, after all, so the new A8s have gone far ahead. Intel processors, too, but mostly in comparison with their predecessors.
 |
 |
The already familiar picture: Celeron G39x0 lags behind even the youngest old A6, Pentium G32x0 loses at all to the no less ancient A4, G4500T at least fights with the A8-3870K, and A8-7650K rises menacingly above all this :)
Is FM1 generally considered a gaming platform as of today? Of course not. Actually, even FM2 + is suitable for this role only conditionally - we have always adhered and continue to adhere to the opinion that if games are one of the intended purposes when purchasing a computer, a discrete video card has no alternative. But you can play some games (if back up) play on IGP too. From the point of view of today's article, the most important thing is that to this day this five-year platform, in general, is not inferior to modern budget solutions from Intel. More precisely, Pentium and Core i3 with GPU HDG 530 are not worse than the older A8 for FM1, but all models up to HDG 510 inclusive (and the old "unnumbered" ones), at best, reach the level of the younger A6. Or even A4. That is, the groundwork at one time was very good, which is not surprising - after all, even the A4-3400 has a full analogue of the Radeon HD 6450, which is de facto still sold under the name Radeon R5 230. The Radeon 6550D built into the older A8 is closer to video cards of a slightly different level - about the Radeon HD 5570. In general, in those years such discrete video cards were in demand, but here is an integrated solution. Which looks pale against the background of new proposals from AMD itself, but how many years have passed. And Intel processors are reaching this level only now, that is, almost five years after the appearance of the FM1 platform, or about six - if you count from the first GPUs from the company integrated “under the cover” of the processor (albeit on a separate die).
Total
The first thing that must be noted in the conclusions is that we did not encounter any problems during testing, despite using the latest version of Windows and a modern set of programs. Yes, of course, video drivers for old "APUs" are available only through Windows Update, but they are installed, and everything works fine - as in the case of Intel's Ivy Bridge (but with Sandy Bridge of the same 2011 as FM1, already there are some roughness).
And in terms of hardware configuration, everything is also simple: completely standard (still) DDR3 memory, ordinary drives with SATA600 interface, built-in USB 3.0 support, and PCI and PCIe buses are used for expansion cards - there have been no significant changes in the market. The latter, by the way, allows you to "whip up" gaming performance if necessary, simply by adding a discrete graphics card. Of course, it makes no sense to put an expensive one, since, after all, the performance of solutions for this platform is low - the expensive one will not be fully used.
In fairness, if we tried to conduct such an experiment in 2011, but with the 2006 system, we would also basically succeed. There might have been problems with memory (due to the transition from DDR2 to DDR3 at the end of the 2000s), but not with other peripherals. But with a 2001 computer in 2006, everything would have been very difficult ... AGP for video cards, Parallel ATA for drives, already exotic SDRAM or RDRAM memory - but why go far: in 2006 we used the x64 version of Windows for testing XP (after all, Vista was released at the end of the year), and the first processors suitable for its operation appeared only in 2003. In general, just until about 2005-2006. the processes on the market were quite turbulent. After - one and a half change of the type of memory (the transition from DDR2 to DDR3 and the ongoing process of implementation of DDR4), and the leapfrog of processor sockets. Other interfaces have already evolved in an evolutionary manner and with the preservation of compatibility. The software more or less stabilized in its requests, which grew only quantitatively (which, taking into account the compatibility of interfaces, was solved), but not qualitatively. And in some areas - and quantitative changes were not observed: the computer on which it was possible to install and comfortably use "Vista", not the worst way copes with the "top ten".
In general, it is not surprising that systems of five and even ten years ago are still in operation. Interestingly, the performance of processors from 2006 to 2011 grew faster than from 2011 to 2016, so the point, in general, is far from it (despite crying and moaning about this in various forums and others like them). It is clear that all those processors are already either slow or very slow - a lot depends on the year. In particular, if we return to our today's heroine, the AMD FM1 platform, then in 2006 it would have been top-end (this is, of course, a hypothetical comparison, but according to earlier tests, the processors for FM1 just correspond to the level of the best Core 2 Duo / Quad, and their video part is worthy of comparison with good discrete video cards of that time), in 2011 - budgetary and already only conditionally gaming, but today ... You saw it yourself :) However, all investments in themselves such systems have long been repulsed, so what if the performance is "not too tight" - then why fix something that didn't break? If something really breaks down and / or ceases to suit for other reasons, then when buying a new computer you can no longer worry about the choice. As you can see, even the integrated graphics of Intel processors have already pulled up to this level, and the new "APU" AMD is even faster. In terms of processor performance, both those and others have also "grown" - albeit to varying degrees, but still. Thus, whatever you buy to replace the old system with FM1 will be at least no worse, but cheaper. And if you do not limit yourself to the cheapest offers, then it is definitely better. In general, you can not think about what happened, but just buy what you need - as if there was no computer at all. Good news, in general. 
How to convert images to PNG format?
Download graphics driver with opengl 2 support
Galvanic isolation of analog signal