AMD Athlon II X2 250 AM3
Yesterday at Computex, AMD took the wraps off of two highly anticipated processors: the Athlon II X2 250 and the Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition. Both are based on AMD's 45nm SOI process with the key difference being the amount of L3 cache. The Phenom II X2 550, codenamed Callisto, gets the full 6 MB cache of the Phenom II family and will serve as AMD's new flagship dual-core processor. The Athlon II X2 250, on the other hand, is based on the new native dual-core Regor die that omits L3 cache completely and targets the mainstream segment. Benchmark Reviews was fortunate to receive samples of both processors. Yesterday we covered the Phenom II X2 550 and today we bring you the Athlon II X2 250 ADX250OGQBOX.
The launch of the Athlon II X2 250 represents not just a new processor, but a completely new AMD brand. Although debuting as an X2 chip, the Athlon II family will soon encompass X3 and X4 processors as well. These chips will not simply be disabled Deneb dies either. They are designed from the ground up without L3 cache to reduce manufacturing costs and offer consumers a less expensive alternative to the cache-laden Phenom II brand. Combined with AMD's 45nm process, these reduced-cache processors will consume considerably less power as well. The Athlon II X2 250 that we're reviewing today, for example, will hit the shelves at 3.0 GHz, 2 MB L2 cache, and a TDP of only 65W.
With a price tag of only $87, the AMD Athlon II X2 250 will be well positioned against Intel's Pentium Dual Core family. As expected, there will also be some internal competition among AMD's other dual core processors. The new Callisto-based Phenom II X2's are the first to come to mind, but the Kuma, Brisbane, and Windsor Athlons will have to make some room as well. Just how much is room is what we hope to find out in this review.
About Advanced Micro Devices, Inc (AMD)
"Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD) is an innovative technology company dedicated to collaborating with customers and partners to ignite the next generation of computing and graphics solutions at work, home, and play.
Over the course of AMD's three decades in business, silicon and software have become the steel and plastic of the worldwide digital economy. Technology companies have become global pacesetters, making technical advances at a prodigious rate - always driving the industry to deliver more and more, faster and faster.
However, "technology for technology's sake" is not the way we do business at AMD. Our history is marked by a commitment to innovation that's truly useful for customers - putting the real needs of people ahead of technical one-upmanship. AMD founder Jerry Sanders has always maintained that "customers should come first, at every stage of a company's activities."
We believe our company history bears that out."
Athlon II X2 AM3 Features
Do more in less time with amazing multi-core performance at a great price.
Exceptional Performance
Get multi-core performance and the features you need to expand your digital lifestyle and take advantage of an exceptional multi-tasking experience.
Visual Experience
Combine with superior ATI RadeonTM HD graphics for an unbeatable HD visual experience to bring your digital media to life and enjoy playing games and sharing with your friends and family
Energy Efficiency
Give yourself a superior PC experience and help get the most out of your budget with next-generation energy efficiency.
ADX250OGQBOX Specifications
-
Model Number & Core Frequency: X2 250 = 3.0GHz
-
TRAY OPN# ADX250OCK23GQ
-
PIB OPN# ADX250OGQBOX
-
L1 Cache Sizes: 64K of L1 instruction and 64K of L1 data cache per core (256KB total L1 per processor) 
-
L2 Cache Sizes: 1MB of L2 data cache per core (2MB total L2 per processor)
-
Memory Controller Type: Integrated 128-bit wide memory controller *
-
Memory Controller Speed: 2.0GHz with Dual Dynamic Power Management
-
Types of Memory Supported: Support for unregistered DIMMs up to PC2-6400 (DDR2-800MHz) -AND- PC3-8500 (DDR3-1066MHz)
-
HyperTransport 3.0 Specification: One 16-bit/16-bit link @ up to 4.0GHz full duplex (2.0GHz x2)
-
Total Processor-to-System Bandwidth: Up to 33.1GB/s bandwidth [Up to 17.1 GB/s total bandwidth (DDR3-1066) + 16.0GB/s (HT3)]
-
Up to 28.8GB/s bandwidth [Up to 12.8 GB/s total bandwidth (DDR2-800) + 16.0GB/s (HT3)]
-
Packaging: Socket AM3 938-pin organic micro pin grid array (micro-PGA)
-
Fab location: GLOBALFOUNDRIES Fab 1 Module 1
-
Process Technology: 45-nanometer DSL SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology
-
Approximate Die Size: 117.5 mm2
-
Approximate Transistor count: ~ 234 million
-
Max Temp: 74 Celsius
-
Core Voltage: 0.85-1.425V
-
Max TDP: 65 Watts
-
MSRP: $87
*Note: configurable for dual 64-bit channels for simultaneous read/writes
Closer Look: Athlon II X2 250
As I mentioned in the intro, the Athlon II X2 250 is based on a brand new native dual core die AMD calls Regor. With a die size of 117.5 mm2 and a transistor count of only 234 million transistors, the X2 250 is considerably smaller than the Deneb-based Phenom II X2 550 that also launched at Computex. Of course, a good portion of the X2 550 die is dedicated to the 6MB of L3 cache that the X2 250 lacks.
To help make up for that lost cache, AMD added an additional 512 KB to each core of the X2 250, bringing the total L2 cache to 2MB. The associativity remains the same, however, matching AMD's other STARS processors. I should also mention that, despite CPU-Z's erroneous claim below that this is an AM2+ chip, it is indeed AM3; I imagine future versions of CPU-Z will correct this.
Of other significance is the 2000 MHz HT Link, up 200 MHz from AMD's previous dual core champion: the Athlon X2 7850. Not pictured in these screenshots, the X2 250's memory controller also runs at 2000 MHz and can be configured as either one 128-bit channel or two 64-bit channels. Officially, it only supports DDR3-1066, but if it's anything like AMD's other K10.5 processors, it should pair nicely with the DDR3-1600 in our test system. Also worth mentioning is that even though this is a mainstream processor, it does have full hardware virtualization support. For those looking ahead to Windows 7, this will be required to enable XP Mode.
Testing and Results
Before I begin any benchmarking or overclocking, I thoroughly stress the CPU and memory by running Prime95 on all available cores for 12 hours. If no errors are found, I move on to a gaming stress test. To do this, I use Prime95 again to stress the processor, while running an instance of FurMark's stability test on top of this. If the computer survives this test for 2 hours without lockup or corruption, I consider it to be stable and ready for overclocking. After achieving what I feel is stable overclock, I run to these tests again for certainty. The goal of this stress testing is to ensure the clock speeds and settings are stable before performing any benchmarks. After all, what good are performance measures if the system cannot reliably produce them?
Once the hardware is prepared, we begin our testing. Each benchmark test program begins after a system restart, and the very first result for every test will be ignored since it often only caches the test. This process proved extremely important in the World in Conflict and Supreme Commander benchmarks, as the first run served to cache maps allowing subsequent tests to perform much better than the first. Each test is completed five times, with the average results displayed in our article.
For our Athlon II X2 250 review, the following test systems and comparison processors will be used. While we certainly don't expect the X2 250 to match the performance of all of these processors, including a variety of mainstream and enthusiast hardware allows us to analyze important price per performance considerations. For this particular review, we'll focus on the AMD X2 7850, X2 550, and Intel E7400 as the closest competitors.
Intel LGA775 Test System
-
Processors: Intel Core 2 Duo E7400, Core 2 Quad Q9450
-
-
System Memory: 2x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 (1333MHz@6-6-6-20 & 1066MHz@6-6-6-15)
-
-
Disk Drive: Western Digital 6400AAKS 640GB
-
Optical Drive: LITE-ON iHAS122-04 DVD Burner
-
PSU: Corsair TX850W
-
-
Operating System: Windows XP Professional SP3
AMD Socket AM3 Test System
-
-
Motherboard: Asus M4A79T Deluxe
-
System Memory: 2x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 (1600MHz@7-7-7-24)
-
-
Disk Drive: Western Digital 6400AAKS 640GB
-
Optical Drive: LITE-ON iHAS122-04 DVD Burner
-
PSU: Corsair TX850W
-
-
Operating System: Windows XP Professional SP3
AMD Socket AM2/AM2+ Test System
-
-
Motherboard: Asus M3A78-EM
-
System Memory: 2x2GB G.SKILL DDR2 (800MHz@4-4-4-12 or 1066MHz@5-5-5-15)
-
-
Disk Drive: Western Digital 6400AAKS 640GB
-
Optical Drive: LITE-ON iHAS122-04 DVD Burner
-
PSU: Corsair TX850W
-
-
Operating System: Windows XP Professional SP3
Benchmark Applications
EVEREST Benchmark Tests
EVEREST Ultimate Edition is an industry leading system diagnostics and benchmarking solution for enthusiasts PC users, based on the award-winning EVEREST Technology. During system optimizations and tweaking it provides essential system and overclock information, advanced hardware monitoring and diagnostics capabilities to check the effects of the applied settings. CPU, FPU and memory benchmarks are available to measure the actual system performance and compare it to previous states or other systems. Furthermore, complete software, operating system and security information makes EVEREST Ultimate Edition a comprehensive system diagnostics tool that offers a total of 100 pages of information about your PC.
The Athlon II X2 250 is off to a great start. It appears that without the additional overhead of an L3 cache, memory bandwidth is slightly ahead of the pack. Copy bandwidth is par with the Phenom II chips, but read and write bandwidths have been significantly improved. In fact, according to Everest, the X2 250 has the best average memory performance of all processors tested.
Moving on to CPU integer performance, we some interesting results. In the Queen and AES tests, it ties the more expensive Intel E7400 and Phenom II X2 550 processors and even pulls ahead of the E7400 in the PhotoWorxx benchmark. However, without the extra 6 MB of L3 cache, it can't quite keep up with the X2 550. One thing is clear, though, it's a definite step up from the Athlon X2 7850 and 4850e.
Things look a bit different in the floating point tests. The Intel E7400 takes the lead in the single precision Julia test. However, the Phenom II X2 550, Intel E7400, and Athlon II X2 250 are essentially on par in the double (Mandel) and extended (Sin Julia) benchmarks.
Passmark PerformanceTest
PassMark PerformanceTest is a PC hardware benchmark utility that allows a user to quickly assess the performance of their computer and compare it to a number of standard 'baseline' computer systems. The Passmark PerformanceTest CPU tests all benchmark the mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, and 3DNow! instructions of modern processors.
In our tests there were several areas of concentration for each benchmark, which are combined into one compound score. This score is referred to as the CPU Mark, and is a composite of the following tests: Integer Math, Floating Point Math, Find Prime Numbers, SSE/3DNow!, Compression, Encryption, Image Rotation, and String Sorting. For this review, we've also decided to run the memory benchmark, which results in a composite score based on the following tests: small block allocation, cached read, uncached read, write performance, and large block allocation.
The results of Passmark PerformanceTest place the Athlon II X2 250 below the Intel E7400 in CPU and memory performance. As I have seen in the past, however, Intel processors seem to fair better on this test. Still, for an $87 processor, the X2 250 puts up a decent fight and even comes close to the Phenom II X2 550.
PCMark05 Benchmark Tests
Using synthetic benchmarks to compare one product to another has some distinct advantages when testing similar hardware, yet I have never found myself completely satisfied by the process. I have come to understand that they're important for comparing "apples to apples", and that the results are usually very consistent. But as with any synthetic benchmark, the numbers can often mean very little more than just numbers. We don't take a high score on a synthetic benchmark to mean that a product will/should perform well, and neither should you. The difference between projected performance and actual performance is the difference between fire and the fire-fly.
PCMark is a series of computer benchmark tools developed by Futuremark. The tools are designed to test the performance of the user's CPU, read/write speeds of RAM and hard drives. We have used these tests to simulate a battery of applications and tasks, which will produce results we can compare to other systems using similar hardware.
Results of the PCMark05 benchmarks are somewhat ambiguous. While the Athlon II X2 250 clearly outperforms the X2 7850, when it comes to the Intel E7400, results are not as conclusive. The X2 250 pulls ahead of the E7400 in the CPU and Memory tests, but falls behind in the overall score and audio compression sub-test. Let's see if our gaming tests can clear things up.
Crysis Gaming
Crysis uses a new graphics engine: the CryENGINE2, which is the successor to Far Cry's CryENGINE. CryENGINE2 is among the first engines to use the Direct3D 10 (DirectX10) framework of Windows Vista, but can also run using DirectX9, both on Vista and Windows XP.
Roy Taylor, Vice President of Content Relations at NVIDIA, has spoken on the subject of the engine's complexity, stating that Crysis has over a million lines of code, 1GB of texture data, and 85,000 shaders. To get the most out of modern multicore processor architectures, CPU intensive subsystems of CryENGINE 2 such as physics, networking and sound, have been re-written to support multi-threading.
Crysis offers an in-game benchmark tool, which is similar to World in Conflict. This short test does place some high amounts of stress on a graphics card, since there are so many landscape features rendered. For benchmarking purposes, Crysis can mean trouble as it places a high demand on both GPU and CPU resources. Benchmark Reviews uses the Crysis Benchmark Tool by Mad Boris to test frame rates in batches, which allows the results of many tests to be averaged.
When testing a CPU, the settings we choose are a bit different than a typical video card review. As you'll see in the charts below, modern games can easily max out the processing abilities of the video card and mask any differences between the CPUs. For this reason, we generally start at low resolutions and quality settings and slowly ramp them up until we hit the limit of the video card. This allows us to quickly distinguish differences between CPUs and identify any other limiting hardware.
As expected, the Athlon II X2 250 lands between the Athlon X2 7850 and Phenom II X2 550 in our collection of Crysis benchmarks. The Intel E7400 takes the lead out of the dual cores, but as we approach the limit of our HD 4870 in the third test, the results begin to level out. The good new is that the X2 250 appears to be enough to drive a high-end video card. However, the same cannot be said for our X2 4850e.
Devil May Cry 4 Gaming
Devil May Cry 4 is one of the newest additions to Benchmark Reviews' testing suite. Fortunately for us, Capcom recognized the community's interest in hardware testing and included a built in benchmarking tool with this game. In fact, it is even included it in the demo. The benchmarking tool runs through four different scene, all of which I highly recommend watching. However, for the purposes of our review, we only report the scores of the most challenging tests: scenes 2 and 4.
Similar to the Crysis gaming benchmarks, we will start testing DMC 4 at lower settings to reduce the impact of GPU limitations. From there, we'll slowly increase resolution and quality settings until we reach the limit of our HD 4870.
The results of our DMC4 benchmark mirror what we saw with Crysis, but with one exception: in the second test run, the Athlon II X2 250 takes up first place, even among the quad-cores. This behavior seems fairly common of this benchmark though. Under these settings, the frames per second tend fluctuate within about 2-3%. To help combat this, we find the average of several benchmarking runs, but there is still some degree of error. Looking at the overall results, I'd say the X2 250 lies somewhere between the X2 7850 and the Intel E7400.
Scene 4 of the DMC4 benchmark appears a bit more consistent. Once again, the Athlon II X2 250 falls between the Intel E7400 and the Athlon X2 7850. However, at these settings and frame rates, any of these processors would do. For more demanding games, though I'd recommend the X2 7850 as the bare minimum to pair with an HD 4870. Otherwise, you risk having a processor-limited system that cannot fully utilize the video card.
SPECperfview CATIA Tests
SPECviewperf is a portable OpenGL performance benchmark program written in C. It was developed by IBM. Later updates and significant contributions were made by SGI, Digital (Compaq, HP), 3Dlabs (Creative Labs) and other SPECopc project group members. SPECviewperf provides a vast amount of flexibility in benchmarking OpenGL performance. Currently, the program runs on most implementations of UNIX, Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Linux.
SPECviewperf parses command lines and data files, sets the rendering state, and converts data sets to a format that can be traversed using OpenGL rendering calls. It renders the data set for a pre-specified amount of time or number of frames with animation between frames. Finally, it outputs the results. SPECviewperf reports performance in frames per second. Other information about the system under test - all the rendering states, the time to build display lists (if applicable), and the data set used - are also output in a standardized report.
A "benchmark" using SPECviewperf is really a single invocation of SPECviewperf with command-line options telling the SPECviewperf program which data set to read in, which texture file to use, what OpenGL primitive to use to render the data set, which attributes to apply and how frequently, whether or not to use display lists, and so on. One quickly realizes that there are an infinite number of SPECviewperf "benchmarks" (an infinite number of data sets multiplied by an almost infinite number of command-line states).
As we saw in our review of the Phenom II X2 550 review yesterday, the Intel E7400 takes the overall lead in our SPECviewperf benchmark. The Athlon II X2 250 comes in ahead of the X2 7850 again, but is a full frame behind the Phenom II X2 550. The extra 100 MHz clock speed and 6MB L3 cache appear to give the X2 550 a slight advantage.
AMD Athlon II X2 Final Thoughts
The launch of the Athlon II brand marks a complete 45nm refresh of AMD's mainstream and enthusiast processors. On the high end, we have the Phenom II X4's and X3's that launched a few months ago. Below that will be the recently launched Phenom II X2 series, although some of these may actually be faster than the low end X3's in single-threaded applications. That leaves the Athlon II X2's one notch lower, sitting directly in the mainstream market segment. The performance we've seen throughout our testing of the X2 250 seems to confirm this. Finally, as noted in AMD's latest pricing, the dual core Kuma's as well as a few of the older K8's will continue to shore up the value segment.
All of this may change, however, as AMD releases additional Athlon II processors. For starters, we can expect more Athlon X2's at different clock speeds, but also Athlon II X3's and X4's. Similar to the X2's, these processors will be manufactured without L3 cache and positioned directly under their Phenom II counterparts. Without the cache, they will be a bit slower in some applications, but will also be less expensive and consume less power. AMD has quite an arsenal pointed at Intel and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
ADX250OGQBOX Conclusion
The Athlon II X2 250 performed well against our collection of test processors. Looking at the results, I'd say it's a definite improvement over the reigning Athlon X2 7850. It even surpassed the Intel C2D E7400 in a few benchmarks, despite having no L3 cache compared to the Phenom II X2 550. It seems the decision to include 2 MB of L2 cache has helped offset this a bit.
Perhaps just as important, the Athlon II X2 250 passed our stress test and completed all benchmarks without a hint of instability. In other words, no hidden TLB bugs here. As I mentioned in the Phenom II X2 550 review, however, be sure to check with your motherboard manufacturer to see if an updated BIOS is necessary.
Speaking of motherboards, we used the ASUS M4A79T Deluxe during our review to maintain consistency with previous benchmarks. However, as an AM3 chip, the Athlon II X2 250 is compatible with a wide range of AM2+ and AM3 motherboards. The new 770 based AM3 boards, for example, would be a good match at this price point.
Thanks to the 45nm process and low TDP (65W), the Athlon II X2 250 should also be a good overclocker. Although we didn't include a detailed overclocking section in this review, preliminary testing yielded a stable clock speed of 3.6 GHz on air, a 20% increase over stock. The catch here is that unlike a Black Edition part, we were limited to overclocking only through adjustments to the bus speed.
At only $87 MSRP, the Athlon II X2 250 brings the efficiency and performance of AMD's 45nm STARS architecture to the masses at an incredible price. Compared to the Phenom II X2 550 that also launched at Computex, it is a bit slower. However, what you give up in cache, you save in cash. Put it to good use.
Pros:
+ Excellent price/performance ratio
+ AM3/AM2 compatibility
+ DDR3 support
+ Efficient 45nm process.
+ Virtualization Support
Cons:
- None
Ratings:
-
Performance: 9.0
-
Construction: 9.5
-
Functionality: 9.25
-
Overclock: 9.00
-
Value: 9.5
Final Score: 9.25 out of 10.
Excellence Achievement: Benchmark Reviews Golden Tachometer Award.
Questions? Comments? Benchmark Reviews really wants your feedback. We invite you to leave your remarks in our Discussion Forum.
Related Articles:
|
Comments