Amd athlon ii x4 635 pinout. Big testing of new models of AMD and Intel processors. Intel - a small revolution in the same positions

First processor solution AMD Athlon IIX4 635 was introduced in January 2011. Manufacturer positioned this product as a middle-class solution with a good margin of performance and a fairly democratic cost. Next, we will talk about the hardware specifications of the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor, its capabilities and other important features associated with this chip.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: positioning

AMD's main processor socket in 2011 was SocketAM3. The hero of this review was intended to be installed in it. The multiprocessors of this socket were subdivided as follows:

— Office PCs were based on Septron series processors. The devices had only one computing core, a minimum amount of cache and low frequencies. They were great for everyday office work, but you couldn't expect anything more from them. The cost of devices in this case was quite low. This feature made such computing systems available.

- The base gaming systems were based on the Athlon II X2 & Athlon II X3 series chips. In this case, the number of computing units was increased to 2 and 3, respectively. The amount of cache memory also increased. The clock rates have also increased significantly. As a result, it turned out that such semiconductor solutions could provide a higher level of performance and made it possible to solve almost any problem. At the same time, it should be noted that some computer games in such systems were launched far from the maximum settings.

- Advanced gaming systems were necessarily based on processors of the Athlon II X4 family. In this case, the number of cores increased to four. Clock speeds were even higher and cache size increased. All this made it possible for the owners of such personal computers to solve any problems, absolutely not paying attention to the requirements of programs for hardware.

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor belonged to the latest class of semiconductor solutions. Premium system blocks, as a rule, were assembled on the basis of microprocessor solutions of the Phenom II family. IN this case the key difference from all previous AMD products was the organization of the cache. Previous processor solutions had only 2 levels fast memory. In this case, the third level appeared. Thanks to its presence, an impressive increase in the level of performance has become possible. The frequency of the silicon solution has also increased significantly.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: bundle types

Existed for the configuration of the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor solution. The first one was designated Trail. This type of equipment included the following components:

- the chip itself in a hard plastic package;

- warranty card;

— quick guide for use and installation;

— branded sticker with the name of the family of central processing units;

This configuration option was mainly focused on large assemblers of system units, who used specialized cooling systems as part of their personal computers.

The second configuration option for the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor solution is called BOX. In addition to everything listed earlier, this configuration option was supplemented with the following components:

- branded cooler from AMD;

- thermal paste.

The central processing unit in this design was aimed at a segment of small computer assemblers who could not afford to purchase a special expensive cooling system. As experience shows, the capabilities of a regular cooler are quite enough to ensure the normal and stable operation of this semiconductor solution.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: socket types

As noted earlier, the main processor socket for this chip was Socket AM3. It was for him that this processor was developed. However, AM2, AM2+ and AM3+ were also physically compatible with this computing platform. Controller random access memory, integrated into the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor, was designed to work with DDR3 memory modules. Since AM2 only supported DDR2, the semiconductor product considered in this material, although it could be installed in such a socket, could not work in combination with it due to the incompatibility of RAM with the controller integrated into the central processing unit. The AM2+ platform was a hybrid one and made it possible to install DDR2 and DDR3. If the last type of RAM was used in the motherboard, then the hero of our today's review could successfully function with it. But in boards with an AM3 + connector, this microprocessor could be installed. As part of such a system, it will work only for the simple reason that it uses DDR3 brackets. Therefore, this chip can be installed in one of three AMD processor sockets: AM2+, AM3, AM3+.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: process technology, thermal aspects, frequencies

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor was produced according to technological standards corresponding to 45 nm. The processor had an area of ​​only 169 mm 2 . This chip has a clock frequency of 2.9 GHz. Maximum temperature value for this device was fixed at 71 degrees. In practice, this parameter is usually in the range from 50 to 62 degrees. The power of this semiconductor solution was only 95 watts.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: cache, RAM subsystem

As mentioned earlier, the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor had two levels of fast memory. The volume of the first level was 512 Kb in total, which were physically divided into 4 equal parts of 128 Kb each. Each of the 128 KB was tied to a specific kernel. They could store only the information that was processed by this computing module. 128 Kb, in turn, were divided into two equal parts of 64 Kb each. In the first 64 KB, only the instructions of the chip were stored, and in the second, data. At the second level, the total cache size was already 2 MB. They were also divided into 4 equal parts of 512 KB, each of which was assigned to a separate core. In this case, there was no rigid separation between data and instruction storage. The address space was shared. The RAM controller integrated into the semiconductor chip of the processor device was dual-channel. The optimal type of RAM for it was DDR3-1333.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: CPU Architecture

A review of the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor indicates that its compute modules were based on the Propus architecture. In this case, the number of cores was 4, and the number of cache levels was limited to two. These are the maximum capabilities of a silicon crystal. It was impossible to somehow improve its performance by unlocking additional items.

Overclocking AMD Athlon II X4 635

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 multiplier was fixed at 14.5. Its overclocking was possible only by the frequency of the system bus. Its nominal value in this case was 200 MHz. In this case, it was also possible to get an additional performance boost by increasing the voltage on the processor core. The order of overclocking of such processors is usually used as follows:

- in the BIOS or in a special software lower the frequencies of all components;

- after that, gradually increase the frequency of the bus system board;

- after each increment, we check the frequencies of the components of the personal computer: they should not exceed the values ​​that were before overclocking;

- if somewhere the frequencies went beyond the permissible limits, then it is necessary to lower the frequency of the system board bus;

- reboot Personal Computer and check the stability of work;

- as soon as the maximum frequency value is reached, and the PC stops working stably, you can start increasing the voltage. At the same time, it is necessary to try to increase the frequency of the microprocessor;

- After the combination of increasing voltage and frequency ceases to produce results, and the system cannot start stably, it is necessary to restore the previous values ​​​​of frequency and voltage. Processor overclocking limit reached.

Practice shows that from the nominal values ​​​​of 1.1 V and 2900 MHz, this processor can be easily overclocked to 1.425 V and 3828 MHz. This allows you to get a percentage increase of 32% to the level of performance.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: chip cost, features, user reviews

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 microprocessor was priced at $110 at launch. Today, such a chip can be purchased on the Internet at a price of 2000-2500 rubles. In their reviews, users characterize the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor only on the positive side. AMD Athlon II X4 635 even today continues to be a relevant product and allows you to run most computer games. Due to the presence of real four computing modules, this chip can overcome the restrictions that are implemented in some of them at the level of program code. Excellent overclocking potential allows this processor to overtake even modern processor solutions.

Conclusion

In 2011, in the segment of mid-range devices, the hero of this review was one of the best and most affordable chips. Although AMD Athlon II X4 635 was released a long time ago by the standards of the computer world, it continues to be relevant and demonstrate a quite acceptable level of performance.

Athlon II X2 255, X3 440, X4 635, Phenom II X2 555, Pentium G6950, Core i3 530, i5 650 and 670

Since the release of processors based on the Clarkdale core for LGA1156 by Intel came exactly at the time when life in our country “freezes” for two whole weeks, we were able to offer you just the test results of just one processor, namely the Core i5 661. Today we will fill this gap, since two more representatives of the Core i5 line reached our laboratory, one Core i3 and one (so far, in principle, the only one) representative of the new Pentium subspecies - now for LGA1156 (which is already a socket for processors with this name, we tried to count, However, this process quickly got boring). In addition, in January a little the lineup updated by AMD. There are no revolutions here, but the situation in the “under $100” and “from $100 to $150” segments, of course, has changed somewhat - now for the same amount as before, a slightly higher performance is offered. However, it is worth talking about all this in more detail - summing up the original results of the year. At the same time and try to make a forecast for the coming year.

AMD - familiar novelties

In the coming months, you should not expect any breakthroughs from the company - there were already many of them over the past year. It all started with the Deneb chip just over a year ago, which allowed the Phenom II based on it (unlike the Phenom predecessors) to quickly lose the status of "whipping boys" and begin to demonstrate quite adequate performance. Later, a light tuning of the memory controller was carried out, which added support for DDR3 memory to the processors, which finally became relevant during 2009. In the middle of the year, the company also put things in order in the lower segment of the market by releasing Regor, which made it possible to abandon the old Athlon X2, which, to put it mildly, have already healed on the market. And, finally, in the fall, the appearance of Propus - a very cheap (thanks to the rejection of the third level cache) quad-core crystal. Of course, the lack of cache memory (only partially offset by a faster RAM controller than Phenom II) could not but affect the final performance, however, within the framework of market competition, price plays an important role, and it can be extremely small for a new device. As a result, AMD managed to “lower” full-fledged quad-cores into the “under $150” segment, to which Intel still does not have a completely adequate answer. In the "up to 100" segment, it's still more fun - only AMD has processors in it that support more than two computing threads. Yes, only in the form of Athlon II, but so what? "Phenoms" with different numbers of cores are mainly dispersed in the "from 100 to 200 dollars" group, where they feel good, and in the higher segment AMD has long threatened to stop performing and, finally, kept its word :)

On this, obviously, the flow of new products from the company has dried up - well, it's just technically impossible to release unmistakable hits every half a year for a long time :) Three things have been done - now it's time to relax a bit and concentrate on bringing Thuban to a state suitable for the mass market. Of course, there is a lot of work there, because it is impossible to simply take and rename the current six-core Opteron to Phenom II X6 - it is still quite expensive and slow on desktop tasks due to the low clock frequency. However, we have no doubt that the company will be able to do everything necessary. It is obvious, however, that to compete with the six-core extreme processor Intel will not succeed, but such a task is not set - the lot of processors based on the Thuban core is competition with the Core i7 800 series. Will they succeed? Most likely quite. True, we will again have to break the promise once made not to produce desktop processors more expensive than $200, but that's okay: since there are potential buyers of such models (even if there are very few of them against the backdrop of the mass market), it's sometimes worth doing something for them.

This concludes the conversation about Thuban - to wait for him for almost half a year. A new microarchitecture - about a year somewhere. And what will the company do in the coming months? Yes, the same thing it does: increasing the clock frequencies of Regor and Propus (as well as a truncated modification of the latter named Rana), which is given to the company for free, since the production process is becoming more and more streamlined. Gradual growth of Athlon II X2, X3 and X4 frequencies will inevitably lead to a decrease in the attractiveness of junior Phenom II X2, X3 and even X4 800 models. There are two options here - either eliminate the latest lines or "move" them up in the same way. Perhaps the first one would be more optimal, because if something ever ruins AMD, it's a mess with the positioning of products - when two whole lines of Intel processors are created in response to one line of Intel processors, inevitably arranging bloody and senseless intra-company competition. But the company is in no hurry to abandon this policy, so the frequencies of Callisto and Heka crystals obtained from Deneb by cutting off the cores of crystals will also increase. Fortunately, this is not difficult at all - Deneb already operates at a frequency of 3.4 GHz, even if it still has too high heat dissipation on it, so the further increase in the frequencies of top models has stopped, but this does not apply to “cut down” models for obvious reasons - there is still a margin. In general, summing up, we will not see faster Phenom II X4 in the near future, but more productive Phenom II X2 and X3 are in the company's plans. And "intraspecific" competition will not go anywhere, the roots of which grow from the release for the same niche of very different processors.

By the way, let's deal with the official positioning of AMD desktop products, since there is too much confusion in this matter. Formally, the junior family of processors is Sempron, however, with these models, not everything is simple - in fact, they are out of categories. Low-power processors made either on “old” chips or on a Regor cut almost beyond recognition: exactly one core remains in the Sempron 140. By today's standards, a single-core processor looks strange, which is why it is “out of category”. In fact, there is a certain meaning in its existence - this is a device with the performance of the five-year-old Athlon FX-57 that has remained unsurpassed in its class, but with a TDP of 45 W instead of 104 W and at a price of less than $40. In general, even if you do not consider the option of unlocking the second core, some buyers may come in handy. As a niche solution, of course.

But among the mass models, everything is simple only on the "lower floor": the basic family is Athlon II X2, which competes with Pentium and Celeron. Two types of processors stand above it at once - Athlon II X3 and Phenom II X2, designed to compete with the Core 2 Duo E7000 and replace them with the Core i3 500. Even higher again, a sweet couple - Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X3, occupying an intermediate position between the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. Or (after the new year) between Core i3 and Core i5. At first glance, everything is very simple: according to AMD, an additional processor core is equivalent to 6 MB of L3 cache. On average, maybe. However, as we have repeatedly seen, in some tasks one thing is more useful, in others - another. So the main complaint against AMD is that it's too difficult to choose, being put in the position of a monkey from a well-known anecdote, who could not decide whether she was smart or beautiful :)

But in a higher price segment again, everything is not bad - there is only Phenom II X4. Moreover, some time ago it seemed that only the 900th family would remain there, but the company decided otherwise, retaining the Phenom II X4 800 as well. But (which is nice) without making a mess - the older model of this family will also have no higher frequency than junior representative of the senior. So it's easier to choose here :) At the same time, both lines are positioned as competitors to Core 2 Quad "in the old way" or Core i5 "in the new way", which, in general, does not raise any special questions.

Intel - a small revolution in the same positions

Things are a little different for this company - despite the fact that the LGA1366 platform appeared at the end of 2008, and the older models of processors for LGA1156 were released in the fall of 2009, until recently the “outdated” LGA775 platform remained the most popular. The reason lay not at all in the technical, but in the economic plane - only 3% of sales fall on processors more expensive than $ 200, however, all Core i7s (regardless of execution) did not fit into the mass group (regardless of execution), and the Core i5 750 falls into it only formally. Thus, the main reason for the release of dual-core crystals for LGA1156 was the need to replace the mass Pentium, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad, and not at all to set any records. In addition, there is an urgent need to embed the graphics core directly into the processor, which is easier to “run in” on mid-range and younger devices. price ranges(where it is even more in demand). It is no wonder that the processors turned out exactly the way they turned out, which we already talked about in the previous article, so we will not repeat ourselves.

What will the company do next? Apparently, like AMD, nothing new in the near future. The running-in of the technological process, the natural price reduction, the phased cessation of the production of Core 2 processors - all this will happen, but there are no new desktop processors that are radically different from the models already being produced. The main forces of the company are now thrown into the server market, since already this quarter a considerable number of four- and six-core processors of the Xeon 5600 line should debut on it, unlike the predecessors of the 5500 family manufactured according to 32 nm standards. In parallel, the assortment of the “semi-desktop” LGA1366 branch will also be updated - at least through the appearance of an extreme six-core model in it. However, we won’t be surprised if suddenly some Core i7 970 with four cores appears along with it, which in fact is a Xeon W5677 with one disabled QPI link - a complete cessation of the release of the Bloomfield crystal in favor of representatives of the Westmere line is quite capable of leading to some savings :) And absolutely new real desktop processors with more than two cores, but according to 32 nm standards, will have to wait until 2011: it is then that, according to current plans, the new SandyBridge microarchitecture will debut. There is still no complete clarity with it (and plans for such a time may change several times), however, presumably, mass processors based on it will have four computing cores with frequencies above 3 GHz, a graphics core (or even two) with a frequency above 1 GHz, 32 nm monolithic die, 8 MB L3 cache, integrated dual-channel DDR3 memory controller, PCIe and DMI controllers... In short, it can be called "accelerated 32 nm Lynnfield with graphics" ;) Looks extremely tempting. Even more gratifying is that the company seems to have clearly learned something from the situation with “wandering in three sockets”, so that talk about the appearance on the market along with the new architecture and the new socket began to subside. And really - why is it needed? A dual-channel memory controller, DMI and PCIe x16 are already implemented in Lynnfield for LGA1156. The release of Clarkdale showed that the FDI interface needed for connecting video connectors can be “crammed” into the same socket, and the memory controller can be anything (as long as it is two-channel). It also copes well with the power supply of processors with a TDP of 95 W, while devices of the new architecture are promised to be limited to 85 W. In a word, unlike the transition from Core 2 to Nehalem, there are simply no objective reasons for introducing a new socket - the external interfaces remain the same, and the internal device will not bother anyone, which has already been successfully demonstrated by the transition from NetBurst to Core 2 within LGA775. True, he also demonstrated that relying on compatibility from the bottom up is not very justified, so the situation may repeat itself: new boards (as usual - on the "new" chipsets of the "sixth" series) will be able to work with all processors, and today's ones - only with today.

However, for now, all this is fortune-telling on coffee grounds and the events of the year to come. As of today, we can talk about competition between three platforms: AM3, LGA775 and LGA1156, and by the end of the year, most likely, only the first and third will remain relevant. LGA1366 has never hit the mass market, and AM2 + is still interesting in the budget sector, but only due to compatibility with AM3 processors, so in the coming months (taking into account the sharp reduction in the supply of DDR2 memory) even some owners can start to forget about it :) So that remains the said "big three". We already know for sure how things are at the top level (if we take the older quad-core processors) - the Core i7 860/870 are the undisputed leaders, however, they are more expensive than many can afford. The performance of the older Core 2 Quad, Phenom II X4 and Core i5 750 is at a comparable level, but the former are irrelevant due to inadequate prices dictated by the high cost. We have also compared AM3 and LGA775 in the lower and middle segments, and the result was again disappointing for the second platform. It's time to see how the balance of power can change the new inexpensive processors for LGA1156.

Test stand configuration

However, we will have only three "inexpensive" processors - the Core i5 670 device is very expensive and comparable to the younger Core i7 for both platforms. But the processor itself is interesting, especially for those who dream of a quiet, compact and sufficiently productive computer. Especially if he is not interested in games and you can get by with an integrated core, which neither the Core i5 750 nor the Core i7 860 simply have. But on the LGA775 platform, integrated video is a function of the chipset, so you can buy a low-power quad-core processor and get comparable conditions. Well, the presence among the tested Pentium G6950, Core i3 530 and Core i5 650, we think, does not surprise anyone - just the most interesting models for the mass user. "Grown" on the same plates, but then very rigidly sorted. Core i5 have the highest frequency, which they can also increase thanks to Turbo Boost, Hyper-Threading support, which allows the company to position them as a replacement for Core 2 Quad, 4 MB cache - in general, full set beneficiaries of a new generation of processors. But for many, the Core i3 will be more interesting, which, in fact, differ from their older brothers only in frequency: the starting one is insignificant, the working one is stronger (since Turbo Boost is not supported by them), but the difference in frequency is compensated easily and naturally with the help of overclocking :) We won’t be surprised , if in the near future it is the i3 530 that will become the overclocker's choice. As for the Pentium, everything is more complicated with it - "new" technologies are not supported, the frequency is minimal, memory support is also cut, the cache size per megabyte has been reduced, and even the video core operates at the lowest frequency. On the other hand, what else can you expect from a processor with a selling price below $100? In the end, against the background of Pentium e6000 and even Core 2 Duo e7000, the new product does not look so bad: the characteristics are very similar to the Core 2 Duo e7400, which is still not positioned as a budget processor.

So, for the LGA1156 platform, we took five (together with the Core i5 661 tested last time) processors, i.e. almost all new items (only the Core i3 540 is missing, but it differs from the 530 only in an increase of 133 MHz frequency, the effect of which is easy to estimate independently). The rows of competitors under LGA775 look no less representative. First, the Pentium E6300 and E6500. The fact is that the G6950 is formally positioned as a replacement for the first in a pair, but we are much more interested in comparing it with the second: it is obvious that a beginner can cope with the E6300, which has the same clock frequency, large cache memory capacity (albeit slower) and an integrated (albeit on a neighboring chip, but with a faster inter-chip interface than the ancient FSB) memory controller is more than real, but we'll see how it all helps to overcome the "extra" 133 MHz clock frequency. The Pentium E6600 would have been even more interesting, but it appeared just the other day, and for its sake alone to assemble test stand under LGA775 there is little desire (again, we are talking about only +133 MHz clock frequency, the effect of which is obvious from the presented pair of Pentiums). Secondly, the Core 2 Duo E7600 - in terms of positioning, the Core i3 530 is between it and the E7500, but see above. And even if there are two almost older Pentiums, it is somehow not very interesting to look for the results of the same E7500: it is obvious that it will be only a little faster than the E6500, and even then not everywhere (which can be assumed based on the small difference between the E7400 and E6300) . Thirdly, the Core 2 Duo Q8400, which is slightly higher than the Core i5 650. And, finally, the Core 2 Quad Q9505, which last time failed to overtake the Core i5 661. Let's see if the Core i5 670 succeeds, good after With the recent release of the low-power Q9505S by Intel, these processors will sometimes turn out to be direct competitors: their prices are similar, and there are no big price differences between motherboards based on the G45 and H55/H57 either. So what exactly to buy for compact computer with integrated graphics in terms of maximum performance - the question is not idle :)

For conventional computer- too: the Q9500 released in January differs from the Q9505 only in the lack of support for VT-d technologies (unlike VT-x, which is of little interest to the “general public”) and TXT. In general, the performance of these two processors is the same, but the selling price of the Q9500 already “breaks through” the magic border of $200, amounting to $183 (against $212 for the older brother). But this is only a little higher (by $ 7) than our experimental Core i5 650 costs! Even more interesting is that new processor occupies the same niche, where two representatives of the same family already “hung out” since last summer: Q9300 and Q9400. How this will end is clear: the Q8200, Q8300 and Q8400 sat on the $163 bar for a long time, and in January the first one officially died. In general, despite the observed wealth of positions in the price lists of retail companies, the Core 2 Quad family is slowly shrinking down to three very similar processors: Q8400, Q9500, Q9505 and a pair of low-power Q8400S and Q9505S. In terms of performance, these are only two models, and both of them are presented in the current article, but it would be better for you to find out the specific prices of all other variations closer to the time of purchase in your favorite store :)

And five more inexpensive (this time really very inexpensive) processors will defend the honor of AMD products today. The updated models of the two Athlon II sub-series are still classified as budget models, and the Athlon II X4 635 is not far from them in terms of price. But today we will not limit ourselves to them: we heeded the wishes of some readers and added the dual-core Phenom II X2 to the list. Also, this time we decided not to pass by the Phenom II X3, despite the fact that so far we only have the results of the “outdated” model 720, but not the “promising” 740. However, the situation is the same in the local retail network, so it's not that scary. But the remaining four models (255, 440, 555 and 635) are new and did not “shine” earlier in our articles. However, they differ from the "old" ones only in the frequency increased by 100 MHz, so they do not deserve a separate article :)

Testing

The performance testing methodology (list of software used and testing conditions) is described in detail in. For ease of perception, the results on the diagrams are presented as a percentage (the result is taken as 100% Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 in each test). Detailed results in absolute terms are available as .

3D visualization

Interactive work even in "serious" packages does not require high computing power. This conclusion can be drawn because the authors of the latter, while supporting multi-core “where necessary” (at the rendering stage, for example), are in no hurry to implement it in “normal” work. But it is desirable to have a large cache memory, and the clock frequency of the pair of cores that are actually involved, of course, matters. Not surprisingly, the fastest of the tested AMD processors turned out to be Phenom II X2 555, where all these conditions are met. It also managed to bypass three out of ten Intel processors and slightly lag behind three more - also a good result, since we already know that these applications are better optimized for the processors of the market leader.

As for Intel itself, the results of newcomers for LGA1156 look the most interesting here. Technically, this is one line, TV frequency may or may not increase, so everything is close to ranking by starting clock frequency. With the failure of the Pentium - less cache memory and speed of access to RAM and the "super-linearity" of the Core i5 670, which we will analyze a little later. In absolute terms, everything is also very good: of the processors for LGA775, only Core 2 Duo E8000 (very expensive) can seriously compete with Core i3 / i5, and on their "own" platform - quad-core models, in general, not radically faster.

Rendering 3D scenes

The Pentium G6950 behaves in exactly the same way as other "regular" dual-core processors, which was a priori obvious - that's what it is. But the Core i3 makes a natural breakthrough and... No - it still doesn't catch up with the older models of AMD's three-core processors, but it comes close to them. The clock speed of the Core i5 is noticeably higher, so that various X3 from AMD are already amenable to them. A reason to rejoice - previously no dual-core models in such conditions could fully fight with practically no three-core ones. But the laws of physics are inexorable, so the older Core i5 only caught up with the much cheaper younger (already younger) Core 2 Quad Q8400. And only slightly more expensive Q9500/Q9505 and even much cheaper Athlon II X4 635 are not "too tough" for this line. Naturally, we expected this from the very beginning ... but, nevertheless, we really wanted to believe in a miracle :) And in early autumn we even succeeded.

Scientific and engineering calculations

And here dual-core models under LGA1156 are not only competitive, but can generally celebrate victory - quad-core processors work with an efficiency of 50%, too much cache is not required. In short, this is one example of an ideal application for Clarkdale. Even when compared to more expensive competitors, the Core i5 670 is just a tiny bit faster than the Core i7 860 at the same price, and the once-popular Core i7 920 is slower than any new Core i5! In short, an engineer's dream. Including the economical one - the Core i3 looks very good: they don’t set records, but for such a price, the performance is even better than a good one :)

Raster graphics

There is exactly one well-optimized application in this group, and that is Paint.NET. Decent, but partially optimized - Adobe Photoshop. But partially yes, and even then - only so much that a multi-core processor can be useful, but you can do without it by using a high-frequency dual-core one. Those, just, are the Core i5 600 series. Unlike the previous group, however, exactly one question arises - is it worth chasing after them, if the already noticeably cheaper Core i3 530 still shows a very good result? And wouldn't it be better (even if there is money) to "reach out" immediately to the Core i7 860, which is even faster (and, most importantly, it is noticeably faster in the most "heavyweight" programs), but costs comparable to the Core i5 670.

Data compression

There is no need to comment on the results of Athlon II X2 in this test once again - it was initially clear that the low cache memory capacity would not allow it to demonstrate anything decent, and additional cores cannot “sweeten the pill” simply because the selected operating modes archivers do not use them. However, a high clock speed and a fast memory controller allow them to keep up with the Pentium, but that's about it. On the other hand, Phenom II looks excellent in this test, since it is equipped with 6 MB of L3 cache. Although slow, we can't discount the benefits of the integrated memory controller, so even the X3 720 is only slightly behind the Core 2 Quad of a comparable clock speed with a full-speed L2 cache. And the clear favorite is Phenom II X2 555, which also has a very high clock speed: 3.2 GHz. As a result, he shared the first place with the Core i5 670, which for such results had to work at a frequency of as much as 3.6 GHz. No wonder - cache memory is 4 MB versus 6 MB, and working with RAM is slower. This also applies to other representatives of the line (not to mention even the Pentium G6950, where it was also cut off), so even the Core i5 650 failed to overtake the Phenom II X3 720 despite the difference in clock speed.

Difference between different types cache memory can be seen very well when comparing processors for LGA1156 and LGA775 - the speed of working with the main memory is comparable, so it does not interfere. As you can see, 3 MB "low-speed" is worse than even 2 MB full-speed - Pentium G6950 lags behind the equal frequency E6300 in these tests. But 4 MB low-speed is no worse than 3 MB full-speed (the difference in clock speed between the E7600 and i3 530 is approximately compensated by WinRAR's inexplicable but well-known love for enabling Hyper-Threading), but in order to compare with 4 MB full-speed (let and divided into two halves) requires almost 400 MHz of clock frequency. But "there is no reception against scrap", so its further growth allows it to catch up and overtake even the Q9505, equipped with 6 MB of full-speed cache memory.

By the way, again, the results of the Core i5 670 in absolute terms are very interesting - after the introduction of Turbo Boost technology, this is not the first time we have encountered the fact that the older model in the line demonstrates a “super-linear” increase in performance relative to frequency, while all the others in fit into the theory. Conclusion? Whatever they say in certain circles, but the selection among processors is very cruel, so the same 670 is not at all overclocked at 133 MHz 660. Apparently, having the same TV mechanism formally, this processor is able to operate at an increased frequency for most of time, which, other things being equal, immediately affects. But not everywhere, so the question of whether such an improvement is worth as much as they ask for it is rather rhetorical :)

Looking at the diagram, a seditious thought arises - isn't Intel using archiving tests of our methodology for its own purposes? Otherwise, it is very similar to the official positioning of new and old processors - to the greatest extent of all presented in the article :)

Compiling (VC++)

Visual Studio is a prime example of an application that needs everything: the number of cores, their clock speed, and the capacity and speed of the cache. The emphasis, however, is mainly on the computing capabilities of processors, so the promised parity between Athlon II and Phenom II is not close, however, for the second line, a capacious cache is an important help, but its absence prevents the first from getting to the leading positions. In fact, even the older Athlon II X4 loses to the Core i5 650 or Core 2 Quad Q8400. What is acceptable for him - to compete with these processors, AMD has Phenom II X4. But, by the way, it loses not so much, winning about the same from a direct competitor in terms of price.

In general, by the way, we are seeing an illustration of the principle “strength breaks straw”: by providing the Core i5 family with the ability to operate at very high clock frequencies in the region of 3.5 GHz, the company managed to neutralize both the relatively small cache memory capacity and its low operating speed, and only two cores (albeit seasoned with Hyper-Threading). However, the laws of nature could not be deceived - even the older Core i5 670 is still slightly, but slower than the cheaper "full-fledged" quad-core Core 2 Quad Q9505, operating at a significantly lower clock frequency.

Java

The Java machine test “in detail” can be used (like other synthetic tests from SPEC) to study the impact of all the subtleties of the implementation of modern computing systems - there are subtests that are heavily dependent on cache memory, there are those that are just as strongly tied to RAM, there are depending only on the computing capabilities of the processor. But as for the overall result, it has long been found out that it strongly depends on the number of computing cores and their performance, reacting weakly to changes in other characteristics. The result is natural - the benefit performance of Athlon II X4 635, which shared the first place with Core 2 Quad Q9505. However, this time too, the high frequency and HT allow the Core i5 to noticeably bypass all the three-core processors and come close to the quad-core processors. True, in order to compare with the Core 2 Quad, as we see, you need to have more than 1 GHz of frequency advantage in reserve, which is not so simple. On the other hand, Athlon II X3 and Phenom II X3 finally got direct competitors in terms of performance, no longer "dangling" between dual- and quad-core processors. In short, this situation can be characterized as a tightening of Intel's battle formations - the previously observed fundamental gap between Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad is absent on the new platform.

Audio encoding

A large cache is not needed (and even harmful), codecs are best optimized specifically for Intel processors- it would seem, come and win. But it doesn't work out - cheap four cores at a high clock frequency are difficult to overcome. But it is quite possible to get closer to them, and it's even easier to bypass three- and dual-core processors (both from a competitor, that from their "old ones") - and even more so. It's just a pity that this applies to a sphere of application that is less and less distinguishable from synthetics - audio coding by modern processors, even in single-two-threaded mode (that is, without the tricks we use), is performed so quickly that its speed no longer has practical significance.

Video encoding

What can not be said about the speed of video encoding - this is a long task, so it cannot yet be said that at least some of modern processors has sufficient performance for it (in the sense that you do not want more). A large part of the blame for this lies with software manufacturers - the possibilities for optimization are endless, but only the authors of x264 approach the issue responsibly. Which is logical - this is the heaviest codec. And it is in it that the results of even the older Core i5 670 allow you to overtake only the youngest (and slowest) representatives of quad-core processors. But in other codecs, the benefits of multi-core are still much less, which allows the processors of the new family to look good, and the presence of the ancient single-threaded Canopus ProCoder in the methodology generally brings them to the first places. Only the Core i5 750 and more expensive models are noticeably faster in the overall standings. Even the older Phenom II X4 has nothing to oppose here (especially if you take into account the traditional curvature of XviD, which does not work adequately on all Phenoms).

Gaming 3D

In general, it cannot be said that games (even in light graphics mode) today are so processor-dependent, since the degree of optimization of the engines used in them leaves much to be desired. The "stumbling block" is literally a few games that require at least a tri-core processor, such as GTA4. At least it was highly recommended in the past - we've seen dual cores capable of handling this game, but at too high a price (in the literal sense). And now Intel has processors that cost less than $150, but outperform the junior quad-core models from both companies. In general, the Core i3 530 and 540 are quite capable of competing with the Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X3 for the title of the best budget gaming processor. But if you are willing to pay more, then it's better to skip the next few "steps" and reach the Core i5 750, which, at a price like the i5 660/661, significantly outperforms everyone on this diagram :)

Total

There is a noticeable "creeping progress" in the AMD Athlon II X4 family - if initially these processors were somewhere under the "full-fledged" quads of both companies, now they are already deeply wedged into the ranks of the latter: another step allowed them to reach the level of Q9300, which is not so and bad for a budget family. Processors of this family with a smaller number of cores behave similarly. This allows AMD itself to gradually get rid of the need to release junior Phenom II, and to bite off new pieces from the big LGA775 pie too. Which, of course, cannot please Intel in any way, but the manufacturer's hands are tied here: it is obvious that any attempts to revive the "old" platform will first of all hit not AMD, but the "new" platform. It seems to us that Intel decided to release the Q9500 gritting its teeth too - this newcomer too maliciously “hooks up” the entire Core i5 line, including the super-successful model 750 (it is faster, but a little more expensive, and motherboards with LGA1156 are also on average more expensive ), but still costs much more than the Athlon II X4 635, so it cannot compete with the latter. The Q8400, by the way, cannot do this either, and an attempt to change it to the Q8500 (which will somehow be able to do this) without touching the price at all will be the last bright day for the Core i5 in the desktop segment.

In general, if something is capable of severely damaging AMD in the public sector, it is not Intel's new products at all, but contention in its camp (which, as Mamai used to say, is "worse than Russians"). As we can see, exchanging a processor core for a third-level cache memory is by no means equivalent. Phenom II scores better than Athlon II with the same number of cores, but behind those with one more core. Everything is logical - in our methodology there are applications for which the amount of cache is more important than the number of cores, but, firstly, there are fewer of them, and secondly, the increase in them is less than that shown in "multi-threaded" tasks. But, since the overall result is very synthetic (it is difficult to imagine a user who would use all the applications included in our methodology, and even pay equal attention to all of them), this state of affairs can be assessed from two sides. The company can be praised - the flexibility of choice offered to the user is amazing, so if he can (and wants) to make an informed choice, he will make it, and in the best way for himself. The reverse side of the coin - since most users do not want to do the above (at least), or even cannot, run into problems with the choice easier than an easy one, because there is a fair amount of confusion. At the everyday level, Phenom sounds "cooler" than Athlon, but in practice, their comparative performance depends on the tasks, and in general - which Phenom and which Athlon are meant. In the previous generation of AMD processors, everything was much simpler and more logical: Athlon can only be X2, Phenom - only X3 or X4, so other things being equal, the latter is at least as good. Now, the monologue that the user will say, who inadvertently bought Phenom II X2 for video encoding, flattered by the name, is better not to even try to imagine in detail :) One thing pleases - the promised parity is observed in games, so at least one category of users can continue to trust AMD claims. Otherwise, the method of competition chosen by the company in the "favorite" (mass) market segment was best described by the "Cockroaches" group in one of their songs: "I will answer your punch with an iron pipe." "Pipes" in the assortment of the company are of different sizes, weights and prices, so there really is something to answer.

Now let's move on to Intel, since the processors presented today by this company are more interesting for research - they are really new. Let's say right away that we really liked the updated Pentium. Not at all because it demonstrates some super-outstanding results, but because they are quite consistent with its positioning: somewhere at the level of older Pentiums for LGA775. Yes, there are even such applications where it lags behind the equal-frequency E6300, but much more often the G6950 manages to catch up with the E6500, or even overtake the latter. And even as a competitor to the processors of the Core 2 Duo E7000 line, this model (like all current Pentiums, by the way) looks very good. In general, the performance is on the level, and the price is below $100 (official; but the real one is somewhere near this mark). Which gives an important strategic result - now even those who expect to spend only $100 on a processor are not at all obliged to choose LGA775 or turn their attention to AMD solutions: the LGA1156 club is open for these users as well. To the great joy not only of them, but also of computer manufacturers, who can finally reduce the range of motherboards used and save on logistics.

We liked the Core i3 even more :) Again - not a record, but quite sufficient performance at a quite reasonable price. Formally, these processors should replace the Core 2 Duo E7000 and cost accordingly, however, as we have already established, even the new Pentiums can fit for this purpose. But the Core i3 allows you not to really regret the removal of the Core 2 Duo E8000 from production (although they are not always faster than these processors, but they are always cheaper and faster just where the performance of the "classic" dual cores was not enough), and they can be considered ( finally!) full-fledged competitors of AMD's three-core processors (adjusted for the price, of course). Of course, we are fully aware that the similarity of the "i3" and "X3" markings is nothing more than a coincidence;) However, the fact remains: now Intel is able to offer customers processors capable of performing more than two computation threads in the "under $150" segment. simultaneously. Again, a very important strategic victory: software makers have received the latest Chinese warning that it's time to stop passing off dual-threading as multi-threading. But tactically everything is very good. Not perfect yet, but at least not as bad as a couple of months ago.

But the attitude towards the Core i5 has changed somewhat based on the results of the tests - at first we met these processors quite warmly, but then we did not have the results of the Core i3 at hand. In general, now you can attribute all the good things said in the previous article to the latter, leaving all the negative of the "six hundredth" series. The fact is that i5 and i3 technologically differ from each other only formally, since Turbo Boost "technology" is only a more "advanced" clock frequency control. In general, everything only rests on it - for the first time in the history of both Intel and AMD: before that, we somehow managed to get used to the fact that processors of different families are really different (at least slightly) technically processors. Even in case extreme models in addition to the maximum frequency, buyers were offered another "bun" - the flexibility of settings, when you can change all the coefficients and so on. And now the situation is akin to what Intel would have released core processor i7 950 called Core i8 1050, citing the fact that it has a clock speed of 400 MHz higher than that of the Core i7 920. Even worse - in 950 it is almost always so much higher than in 920, but in a pair of i3 540 and i5 650, the difference ranges from 133 to 400 MHz, i.e. may not exceed the gap between 530 and 540. So why then are these processors considered different? We cannot answer this question. Maybe because they provide different levels of performance? Not at all - of course, a higher frequency leads to a higher speed, but it cannot bring fundamental differences. Both processors perform equally well in low-threaded applications, but lose out to any quad-core processors as soon as the load becomes more serious. But if this is excusable for the Core i3 - it is relatively inexpensive, then for the Core i5 it is no longer: even the younger model is more expensive not only from AMD, but also from Intel's Core 2 Quad. AND the only way The solution to this problem will be only a complete curtailment of sales of the latter: no processor - no choice problem. One problem, of course - to stop the production of Athlon II X4 with Phenom II X4 as well beyond the company's capabilities :)

On the other hand, such a gloomy view of the new processors is largely due to the fact that Intel rests on their ability to perform four threads of computation and tries to position the Core i5 600 at the level of "full-fledged" quad-core models (and not only old ones, but also new ones). However, it is obvious that competition with them in those areas where the advantages of four cores are fully revealed is impossible - for this, Core i5 would need to get not only Hyper-Threading support, but also ... a third computing core. However, the peculiarities of the current situation are that for the mass of users multi-threaded applications are still nothing more than a theoretical bright future - it is easy to see that there are far from all of them in our methodology, even if we take professional programs into consideration. In some cases, of course, it makes sense to save money and limit yourself to Core i3 or even Pentium, but a lot of people are willing to pay for a fast dual-core processor. No wonder the Core 2 Duo E8000 is still being sold (not to mention those that were bought earlier and are being used). And this is where the Core i5 fits in the best way - it's a really fast dual-core processor, and the main drawback of even the best "classic" dual-core models has been fixed in it. Both Phenom II X2 and Core 2 Duo look too pale in multi-threaded applications, losing even to Athlon II X3, while Core i5 overtakes it even in such uncomfortable conditions. While continuing to demonstrate outstanding performance in applications "friendly" to this family. In general, the 600th series is very good as the best dual-core processors. But you shouldn't try to compare it with quad-core processors for the whole range of tasks - nothing good will come of it. So we continue to hope that within a year Intel will still offer us some kind of processor in this price niche, about which we won't have to write so much in the subjunctive mood.

Processor solutionwas introduced in January 2011 and was positioned by the company as a middle-class product with a good margin of performance and a fairly affordable price. It is about its capabilities, hardware specifications and other important nuances associated with this chip that will be discussed further.

Positioning

In 2011, AMD's main processor socket was Socket AM3 . It was for installation in it that the hero of this review was intended.The microprocessors of this socket were subdivided as follows:

Personal computers for office purposes were based on the CPU seriesSeptron.Only 1 computing core, the minimum cache size and very low frequencies were perfect for solving just such problems, but it was impossible to get something more in this case. Also, the cost in this case was very low, and this moment made such computing systems very affordable.

The basic game systems were based on chips of the seriesAthlon II X2 & Athlon II X3.The number of computing units in this case was increased to 2 or 3, respectively. The amount of cache memory also increased, there were higher clock rates. As a result, such semiconductor solutions provided a significantly higher level of performance and made it possible to solve almost any problem. At the same time, it should be noted that sometoys on such software were launched with far from the maximum settings.

Padvanced gaming systems were necessarily based on the CPU of the familyAthlon II X4.The number of cores in this case increased to 4, the clock speeds were even higher, the cache also increased significantly. All this allowed the owners of such PCs to solve any problems, not paying attention to the software requirements for hardware. It was to this class of semiconductor solutions that the central processor belonged, which will be discussed in this material.

Premium system blocks were assembled on the basis of microprocessor solutions of the familyPhenome II.The key difference from all previous AMD products in this case was the organization of the cache. If all previous chips had only 2 levels of such fast memory, then in this case the third level appeared. It was his presence that provided an impressive increase in performance. Alsothe number within this family of processors could reach 6, and the clock frequencies of silicon solutions were significantly increased.

Package types and what's included

Processor AMD solution Athlon II X4 635 could be supplied in two options configuration. The first of these was designated astrail andincluded the following:

The chip itself is in a hard plastic package.

Warranty card.

Brief installation and usage guide.

Corporate sticker with the name of the CPU family.

This set was designed forvery large assemblers of system blocks, which used specialized cooling systems as part of their PCs. The second configuration of such a microprocessor was calledBOX.In addition to everything previously listed, it was supplemented by the following:

F branded cooler from AMD.

Thermal paste.

IN In this design, this CPU was aimed at a niche of small assemblers who could not afford a special, more expensive cooling system. As experience has shown, even the capabilities of a standard cooler were quite enough for the normal and stable operation of such a semiconductor solution.

socket types

As noted earlier, the main processor socket for this chip was Actually, this CPU was designed specifically for it. But, as you know, AM2, AM2+ and AM3+ were physically compatible with this computing platform. RAM controller integrated inwas designed to work with standard memory modulesDDR3. ANDdue to the fact that AM2 could only work withDDR2,the semiconductor product considered in this material could at least be installed in such a processor socket, but it could not work normally in combination with it due to the incompatibility of RAM with motherboard and a controller integrated into the CPU. The AM2+ platform was hybrid and allowed to install bothDDR2, so DDR3.If the motherboard was with the latest type of RAM, then the hero of this review could successfully function in it. But in boards with AM3 + you can install. It will work successfully as part of such a system for the reason that it only uses slatsDDR3.Therefore, this chip can be installed in one of the AMD 3-processor sockets and successfully work as part of such a PC:

AM2+ (subject to availability of slotsDDR3).

AM3.

AM3+.

Technological process. Frequency, thermal aspects and temperature conditions

AMD Athlon II X4 635 was produced according to technological standards that corresponded to 45 nm. Processor had an area of ​​169 mm 2 . This chip had a clock frequency of 2.9 GHz. The maximum temperature for it was fixed at 71 degrees.. In practice, this parameter, as a rule, was in the range from 50 to 62 degrees.. The power of this semiconductor solution was 95 watts.

Cash. RAM subsystem

As noted earlier, AMD Athlon TM II X4 635 had only 2 levels of fast memory. The total volume of the first level was 512 KB, which were physically divided into 4 equal parts of 128 KB each. Each of these 128 KB was tied to a specific core and could only store information processed only by this computing module. Also, these 128 KB were divided into 2 equal parts of 64 KB each. The first 64 KB stored only the instructions of the chip, and the second - the data. The total cache size at the second level was already 2 MB. They were also divided into 4 equal parts of 512 KB, assigned to a specific core. There was no hard division into storing instructions or data in this case, and the address space was shared. The RAM controller was integrated into the semiconductor chip of the processor device, and it was dual-channel. The optimal type of RAM for it is DDR3-1333.

CPU architecture

A review of the Athlon II X4 635 indicated that its compute modules were based on the Propus architecture. The number of cores in this case was 4, and the number of cache levels was limited to two. These are the maximum capabilities of this silicon crystal, and somehow it was not possible to improve its capabilities by unlocking additional elements.

Overclocking of this silicon product

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 multiplier is fixed at 14.5. As a result, it can be overclocked only by the system bus frequency, the standard value of which in this case is 200 MHz. An additional increase in performance in this case can also be obtained by increasing the voltage on the processor core. The procedure for overclocking such CPUs is as follows:

We lower the frequencies of all PC components in BIOS or in specialized application software.

Then gradually increase the frequency of the system board bus. After each such increment, we check the frequencies of the PC components: they should not exceed the values ​​that were before overclocking. If somewhere it went beyond the permissible limits, then we lower it. We restart the PC and check the stability of the work.

As soon as we reached the maximum frequency value, and the PC stops working stably, we begin to increase the voltage. In parallel, we are trying to increase the frequency of the microprocessor.

As soon as the combination of increasing the frequency and voltage ceases to bring results, and the system no longer starts up stably, then we restore the previous values ​​​​of frequency and voltage. The CPU overclocking limit has been reached.

As experience shows, from the standard 1.1 V and 2900 MHz, this processor can be completely overclocked to 1.425 V and 3828 MHz. In percentage terms, this allows you to get 32% of the speed.

The cost of a 4-core chip. Opportunities for today. The opinion of the owners of a PC based on it. Reviews

At the start of sales, this microprocessor was priced at $110. Now such chips can be purchased for 2000-2500 rubles on the Internet at various international trading floors. And in brand new condition. Only on the positive side characterize this CPU reviews. AMD Athlon II X4 635 is still a current product and allows most toys to run for the time being. Including modern and most demanding ones. The presence of real 4 computing modules allows this chip to pass the restrictions, which in some of them are implemented at the level of the program code. Well, excellent overclocking potential allows this CPU to even overtake more modern processor products.

Summary

One of the best and most affordable chips in 2011 in the mid-range segment was the hero of this review. And although the AMD Athlon II X4 635 was released by the standards of the computer world a long time ago, but it is still relevant, and its performance level is acceptable.

Thematic materials:

Log in to Yandex disk login password

Danil Fimushkin Working in adobe animate

How to control the mouse from the keyboard

What is skype protocol?

change theme to windows 10

Adding a program to antivirus exclusions How to add exclusions to Norton Security

How to install a free Yandex browser on a computer

Solving the problem with GPT disks when installing Windows