Amd athlon 64 x2 description. Interactive work in 3D packages

The characteristics, delivery package and appearance of this product may differ from those indicated or may be changed by the manufacturer without being reflected in the NICS - Computer Supermarket catalog.
Information about product prices and configurations indicated on the website does not constitute an offer in the sense defined by the provisions of Art. 435 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Options, consumables and accessories for AMD ATHLON 64 X2 5200+ Processor

Reviews

We tried to make the description as good as possible so that your choice would be unmistakable and informed, but... We may not have used this product, but only touched it from all sides, and after you buy it, try it out, your review can make this world a better place, if your review is really useful, we will publish it and give it You have the opportunity to make your next purchase from us using the 2nd column.

AMD ATHLON 64 X2 5600+ – Super 10000000000000000000000%

5 Pulse 05-09-2019

Device owner rating.

We study the latest “blank spots” in the history of processors

We thought that as part of testing outdated platforms we would have to limit ourselves to just two articles devoted to processors for Socket AM2, which did not include many interesting models from a research point of view, but reality turned out to be a little more favorable to us - we managed to get four more Athlon 64s. Moreover filling in the gaps of previous tests very well, so today we will deal with them. By also including the Sempron 3200+ from the first article, but without organizing cross-platform competitions. The reason is simple and clear: there is no one to compare with. As we have already seen from above, the entire Athlon 64 X2 family (with the possible exception of the top 6400+) is “overshadowed” by processors such as the A4-3400 or even the specific and niche Celeron G530T, but it’s difficult for the middle class to resist the Celeron G460. But it’s just interesting to take a look at how things are (or rather, were) in the middle and lower classes inside. That's what we'll do.

Test bench configuration

Let's start with single-core models. As you can see, to be completely happy we still need the Sempron 3400+: it has the same frequency as the Sempron 3200+ and Athlon 64 3000+, but has a 256K byte cache. Those. If we could find such a model, we would get a full L2 line (128/256/512) for single-core models at the same frequency. But what we managed to get was successful. But Athlon 64 actually appeared among those tested, two of them at once, so it will be possible to estimate the increase relative to the clock frequency.

The list of dual-core models will include three processors, two of which have the same name - alas, but such are the costs of the “old” naming systems by frequency or performance rating: doublets, triplets and more then poured out like a cornucopia. Moreover, 4200+ (as well as 3800+, 4600+, 5000+... continue on your own) was also lucky to some extent - the “namesakes” had the same frequencies and L2 capacity. Why did the pairs form at all? At first, the Athlon 64 X2 used a 90 nm Windsor crystal, and then switched to 65 nm Brisbane. It turned out to be such a peculiar mess, growing in another subline. The fact is that Windsor could have either 1 MiB of cache memory or 2 MiB (512K/1024K per core, respectively), and Brisbane could only have the smaller of these values. As a result, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+/4400+/4800+ and beyond were completely different. For example, 90 nm 4400+ (also a participant in our testing) is 2.2 GHz and 2x1024 L2, and 65 nm 4400+ is 2.3 GHz and 2x512. Adding to the confusion, the mainstream Windsors were both conventional (89W TDP) and energy efficient (65W TDP), with the Brisbane coming in second. In general, AMD's assortment included three mass-market Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and another embedded processor with the same name (in fact, the same AM2, the same Brisbane, but 35 W)! How could they be distinguished? Only in terms of markings, and complete ones at that, the beginning was similar, i.e. ADO4200 – two processors: you also need to read the “tail” for clarity.

In general, this is an excursion into history in order to remind those who like to whine about the good old days and the incomprehensibility of current processor numbers about how everything really was back then :) As for the topic of testing, this trio of Athlon 64 X2 will allow us to look for answers three questions at once. The first two are obvious: the usefulness of the increased cache memory (“canonical” 4200+ versus 4400+) and the performance ratio of the two microarchitectures. The third “pops up” if you look closely at the performance characteristics: 4200+ on Windsor is exactly two Athlon 64 3500+ in one socket. Accordingly, the benefit (or lack thereof) of the second core will be very clearly visible, and without the “disturbing” effect of a shared cache memory or different cache capacities.

As we wrote earlier, RAM support for AM2 processors has its own subtleties. Single-core models are officially limited to DDR2-667, but in practice they have nothing against setting the frequency to 800 MHz. This positive point, but there is also a negative one - divisors can only be integer, so “true” 800 is obtained only in processors whose frequency is completely divisible by 400. In all other cases, everything is somewhat worse - for processors with a frequency of 1.8 GHz the real mode of memory operation generally DDR2-720, and at 2.2 GHz we get DDR2-732. It is clear that given the weakness (from the modern point of view) of the nuclei themselves (or even the nucleoli :)) this does not play a special role, but it is worth remembering this behavior of the “old men”.

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups, and show the average result for a group of tests/applications in diagrams (you can find out more about the testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points; the performance of the reference test system from the 2011 sample site is taken as 100 points. It is based on the processor AMD Athlon II X4 620, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and video card () are standard for all tests of the “main line” and can only be changed within the framework of special studies. For those who are interested in more detailed information, again, it is traditionally proposed to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are presented both converted into points and in “natural” form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

We were torn by doubts for a long time - these are single- or dual-threaded tests, so complete certainty on the issue is extremely pleasant :) Still, the first thing, and there is also a problem with process migration across cores, typical of multi-core processors without a shared cache memory. And the latter is important here - as we see, Athlon is faster than the equal-frequency Sempron by as much as 20%, and a further increase in L2 also adds almost 10%. At first glance, this seems insignificant compared to the gain from increasing the clock frequency, but do not forget that 3000+ and 3500+ are separated by as much as 400 MHz. Accordingly, the question arises: how did AMD plan to compensate for the decrease in cache memory capacity in the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ in Brisbane by increasing the frequency by only 100 MHz, if this crystal, all other things being equal, is also slightly slower than the Windsor? However, it is, of course, somewhat rash to draw conclusions from the first group of tests, so we’ll wait.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

Despite the dramatically changed nature of the load, Brisbane is still, all other things being equal, slightly slower than Windsor. But what’s more interesting is not this, but the almost linear scalability of applications across cores. Even super-linear, which is also understandable - a single-core processor has one core for everything, not just application program threads, and two or more can “find” additional resources for service processes with less damage to the main work. Although, for obvious reasons, the absolute indicators of the oldies are no longer impressive: Celeron G465 (modern, with Hyper-Threading, but physically single-core and low-frequency), for example, scores 35 points in this group of tests, i.e. at the level of Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and only 10% less than 4200+.

Packing and Unpacking

The increase from multi-core is only 20%, although two cores can use two out of four tests. But the disadvantage of the Athlon from the point of view of these programs is the lack of a shared cache, so there is nothing surprising. Even if its number is doubled, 4400+ outperforms 3500+ by 1.3 times, and the same ratio for dual- and single-core Celerons is 1.47. Detailed comments are unnecessary: ​​Pentium D were even worse from the point of view of practical implementation, but the example of the Athlon 64 X2 also clearly shows the viciousness of the way of creating multi-core processors by mechanically combining several cores in one package. Of course, this is better than nothing, but worse than the initially multi-core design as in the same Phenom or, at least, Core Duo, which has recently become a de facto standard in the industry.

Audio encoding

Linear scalability and immunity to cache capacity - we knew this before. So another loss to Brisbane was relatively new. It's already getting monotonous :)

Compilation

Scalability is almost linear, since cache memory is already important here, but you can see how important it is. Just don’t forget about its exclusive architecture. Taking this into account, we see that the transition from 192 KB (total) Sempron 3200+ to 640 KB Athlon 64 3000+ gives almost a 30% increase in performance. But its further increase from 640 to 1152 KB adds 10% - to some extent, also close to linear scalability.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

A couple of threads are useful here too, albeit to a lesser extent than in the previous two groups. Its value is even higher than that of cache memory or clock frequency. But of course there is nothing new in this.

Raster graphics

And here a pair of cores is in demand by most applications, although not to the full extent. But, by the way, the cache is of little use - to the great joy of those who once bought Sempron. Now, however, neither them, nor the Athlon 64, nor even the Athlon 64 X2 can be used as such only in the absence of fish: 62 points is not only a 65 nm Athlon 64 X2 4200+, but also... a single-core Celeron G440. On average, of course, any Athlon 64 X2 runs ACDSee batch tests noticeably faster, but such image processing is striking, but, unfortunately, an exception to the rule. Other RAW converters, where at the “development” stage you can parallelize the work by simultaneously processing several photographs, will behave similarly. But after development, there usually comes a stage of retouching and other things - usually much longer. With all the consequences. Especially for lovers of everything alternative - while Photoshop can partially use multithreading, GIMP is not yet trained for this at all.

Vector graphics

At first glance, these two programs do the same, but this is not entirely true - the main problem of the Athlon 64 X2 in them is the lack of a single cache memory, which reduces the effect of the second core to almost zero. Or even lower - Brisbane here turned out to be even worse than equal-frequency Orleans.

Video encoding

And again, close to linear scalability, as well as weak dependence on cache memory capacity. Everything would be fine, of course... If we compare processors only with each other, and not with modern models, but this is exactly what we are doing today. Fortunately for the old people, who, of course, are no longer very suitable for work of this kind, even if they got it for nothing.

Office software

But in principle it is possible to work with such programs. Not because, of course, the “old” processors are so fast, but because the new ones are not too far removed from them, since most modern technologies applications of this class are not used. However, some progress has also been observed in single-threaded performance over the past years, so even the Celeron G465 outperforms the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ by 25%. On the one hand, it seems that there is nothing critical. On the other hand... why endure even minor inconveniences?

Java

The increase from dual-core is almost linear. But in terms of the JVM’s demands on cache memory, we have finally found the threshold above which we can’t “twitch”: from 192 KB to 640 KB almost 15%, but from 640 to 1152 KB only 3%. At SBDC we observed the second, and in general most modern processors behave in a similar way - in particular, the multi-core Athlon II is no worse than the Phenom II, which is similar in frequency and number of cores, but that’s why they are modern: either there is L3, or L2 is large (from 512K and beyond) capacities. But it turned out to be useful to test the “old guys”, if only to make sure once again that not all dependencies can be extended indefinitely in any direction - there are thresholds that change everything dramatically. Especially when we're talking about about cache memory, which is either enough (and then further increase gives almost nothing), or not enough (and then everything slows down very sharply).

Games

As we already wrote once, the launch modern games on single-core processors is not for the faint of heart. However, you can get some kind of result, you can also rejoice at the almost linear increase from the second computing core, but then the thought stops :) Suffice it to remember that the fastest dual core processor, namely the Pentium G2120 scores 119 points, and the fastest quad-core Athlon II X4 651 reaches 121 points. Above, of course, there are all sorts of Phenom II, FX and Core, but we are now more interested in budget models, since the main characters are too old processors. The video card used is, of course, redundant for both named groups of CPUs, so we get a pure comparison of them. It’s difficult to get a big increase above – the result of the Core i7-3770K is 159 points. But below is an almost twofold difference between modern processors for “about $100” and “oldies”, i.e. Of the approximately 150% gap between the i7-3770K and the Athlon 64 X2 4200+, the first 100% falls on the gap between the latter and modern budget devices. This, we repeat, is even when using a video card, which is almost never adjacent to any Athlon in real computers. Conclusion? It has already been stated many times: when focusing on the gaming use of a computer, the main funds should be spent on a video card. Secondly, the video card. And the third – it’s her. The processor is much less important. Naturally, this should not be a middle-class model from six years ago and certainly not a budget processor of that time, but from modern devices you can get by with an inexpensive one. It can, of course, be expensive if finances are not tight, but only after the appropriate video card has been purchased. But before purchasing a new expensive video card for an old computer, you need to think twice - perhaps it’s worth upgrading the platform first. Of course, there is nothing new in this, but once again it’s always nice to be convinced of the validity of common truths :)

Multitasking environment

Running this experimental test on Sempron (and single-core Athlon 64), as already mentioned, falls into the realm of stress testing, since its single run takes several hours, but here the difference between games and “regular” applications is already clearly visible. Simple - if low performance in an interactive environment is a death sentence for the system, then in other matters... Well, it works slowly - so what? Ultimately, he copes with the task after some time. Even if you literally “overload” the computer with several tasks of this kind, it is unlikely that they will be solved on it even one at a time. Another thing is more interesting: as we see, we are not talking about linear scalability here (unlike some other tests): Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (“correct”, i.e. 90 nm) is about one and a half times faster than Athlon 64 3500+ . At the time of the announcement of the AM2 platform, the selling prices of these two models were equal to 359 and 184 dollars, respectively, and a considerable number of then X2 buyers chose them “for the future”: in the expectation that in a couple of years the single-core processor would definitely need to be replaced with something, but the dual-core one will still work. Can this be considered to have taken place at least now? The debate continues :) But what’s interesting is not even this, but the fact that as a result of the price wars that broke out in 2006, not even the desired couple of years had passed before the Athlon 64 X2 became much cheaper. In particular, since July 2007, the “66-point” 6000+ began to be shipped for $178. Simple arithmetic: 184 + 178-359 = 3 dollars, which such a slightly extended upgrade would cost without changing the board and with the assumption that 3500+ would not have found its buyer after it, instead of buying 4200+ at the start. Of course, it is unlikely that anyone could have predicted exactly such a development of events (and in general: If only I were as smart before as my Sarah after (c)), but fans of “promising” platforms and processors should remember that there have been such historical experiences.

Total

We assessed how the Athlon 64 X2 compares with modern processors last time, and we figured out how Sempron was done the year before, which is why today we decided to move away from “long-term” comparisons, simply filling in the gaps in knowledge about processors for Socket AM2. Let’s look at the subjects from this point of view.

Sempron and single-core Athlon 64 are actually very similar. It is noticeable, of course, that the large cache memory capacity gives the latter a lot, however, in fact, Athlon with different L2 differ from each other no less noticeably. From the diagram it seems that more, but we should not forget that we were unable to find the Sempron 3400+, but it would most likely fit into the gap between the Sempron 3200+ and the Athlon 64 3000+ in a manner similar to the Athlon 64 X2 4200 + and 4400+. In general, the differences between mononuclear families are artificial: the second began a little higher than the first ended. The only point of intersection can be considered perhaps between Sempron 3600+ and Athlon 64 3000+: a higher frequency, even at 256K L2, may well allow the first processor to sometimes even overtake the second. But, by the way, pay attention to how different ratings are needed for this: 3600+ and 3000+. Although both processors, according to AMD's instructions, indicate performance, however grenades are clearly of different systems;) What has always been grist to the mill of supporters of the version is that in fact the rating does not indicate any objective (albeit hypothetical) performance compared to the reference Athlon on some set of applications, but the frequency of comparable performance Intel processors. Only different ones - Celeron and Pentium 4, respectively. Due to the passage of years, and the change in the labeling system for AMD processors to, to put it mildly, a more convenient and logical one (more precisely, there are already several new ones that are more convenient and logical), naturally, there is no point in seriously dealing with this issue today, but since we have our own kind of an excursion into history, why not remember this very story once again? :)

The rating of the Athlon 64 X2 is essentially a test shot in the forehead official version. It is clear that mass-produced software did not immediately become at least two-threaded, but in the future, other options for the development of events were not initially visible. And what have we come to? 500 points for Athlon 64 gives an increase in the final score of our method by 1.19 times, and 300 points between families – 1.2 times (if we compare Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and Athlon 64 3500+). But the next 400 points are already inside the Athlon 64 X2 - only 1.07 times! In general, judging the performance of different families based on the ratings of different families is a completely thankless task, although it was officially introduced for this purpose. However, the ratings of the Athlon 64 X2 can no longer be compared with the clock speed of Intel processors - there was no Pentium D with official frequencies of 4 GHz and higher. But there were no such Pentium 4 either.

Comparison of two versions of Athlon 64 X2, i.e. Brisbane and Windsor are also interesting only from a historical point of view, but resonate with modernity. And with the ratings too - as we see, the processor on a newer crystal is so consistently behind its predecessor of equal performance characteristics that the 65 nm Athlon 64 X2 4200+ would have to have a frequency at least 100 MHz higher, i.e. 2.3 GHz. Alas, this Brisbane was called Athlon 64 X2 4400+, which it definitely had nothing in common with. It is clear that the problem could be solved by more competent distribution of ratings, but without them it would not have been created at all. Why does this resonate with modern times? Brisbane is cheaper to produce than Windsor and somewhat more economical - a direct analogy with Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. But there are also serious differences: with equal performance characteristics, Ivy is still faster than Sandy, firstly, and such processors are called differently, secondly. In general, when scolding Intel for the too small increase from the development of the 22 nm process technology, it is worth remembering that there have been worse cases in history.

This concludes the archive topic - at least until commissioning new version testing methods. Next in line is the final version of the processor results; fortunately, enough material has accumulated compared to the intermediate one: almost as much as there was in the last one. All that remains is to study the performance of the new AMD processors for Socket AM3+, which we will do in the next article.

The Athlon 64 x2 model 5200+ was positioned by the manufacturer as a mid-level dual-core solution based on AM2. It is with his example that the procedure for overclocking this family of devices will be outlined. Its safety margin is quite good, and if you had the appropriate components, you could get chips with indexes 6000+ or ​​6400+ instead.

The meaning of CPU overclocking

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor model 5200+ can easily be converted to a 6400+. To do this, you just need to increase its clock frequency (this is the meaning of overclocking). As a result, the final performance of the system will increase. But this will also increase the computer's power consumption. Therefore, not everything is so simple. Most components computer system must have a safety margin. Accordingly, the motherboard, memory modules, power supply and case must be more High Quality, this means that their cost will be higher. Also, the CPU cooling system and thermal paste must be specially selected specifically for the overclocking procedure. But it is not recommended to experiment with the standard cooling system. It is designed for a standard processor thermal package and will not cope with increased load.

Positioning

The characteristics of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor clearly indicate that it belonged to the middle segment of dual-core chips. There were also less productive solutions - 3800+ and 4000+. This First level. Well, higher in the hierarchy there were CPUs with indexes 6000+ and 6400+. The first two processor models could theoretically be overclocked and get 5200+ out of them. Well, the 5200+ itself could be modified to 3200 MHz, and due to this, get a variation of 6000+ or ​​even 6400+. Moreover, their technical parameters were almost identical. The only thing that could change was the amount of second level cache and technological process. As a result, their performance level after overclocking was practically the same. So it turned out that at a lower cost, the end owner received a more productive system.

Chip Specifications

AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor specifications may vary significantly. After all, three modifications of it were released. The first of them was codenamed Windsor F2. It operated at a clock frequency of 2.6 GHz, had 128 KB of first-level cache and, accordingly, 2 MB of second-level cache. This semiconductor crystal was manufactured according to the standards of a 90 nm technological process, and its thermal package was equal to 89 W. At the same time, its maximum temperature could reach 70 degrees. Well, the voltage supplied to the CPU could be 1.3 V or 1.35 V.

A little later, a chip codenamed Windsor F3 appeared on sale. In this modification of the processor, the voltage changed (in this case it dropped to 1.2 V and 1.25 V, respectively), the maximum operating temperature increased to 72 degrees and the thermal package decreased to 65 W. To top it off, the technological process itself has changed - from 90 nm to 65 nm.

The last, third version of the processor was codenamed Brisbane G2. In this case, the frequency was raised by 100 MHz and was already 2.7 GHz. The voltage could be equal to 1.325 V, 1.35 V or 1.375 V. The maximum operating temperature was reduced to 68 degrees, and the thermal package, as in the previous case, was equal to 65 W. Well, the chip itself was manufactured using a more advanced 65 nm technological process.

Socket

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor model 5200+ was installed in the AM2 socket. Its second name is socket 940. Electrically and in relation software it is compatible with AM2+ based solutions. Accordingly, it is still possible to purchase a motherboard for it. But the CPU itself is quite difficult to buy. This is not surprising: the processor went on sale in 2007. Since then, three generations of devices have already changed.

Selection of motherboard

A fairly large set of motherboards based on AM2 and AM2+ sockets supported AMD processor Athlon 64 x2 5200. Their characteristics were very diverse. But to make maximum overclocking of this semiconductor chip possible, it is recommended to pay attention to solutions based on the 790FX or 790X chipset. Such motherboards were more expensive than average. This is logical, since they had much better overclocking capabilities. Also, the board must be made in the ATX form factor. You can, of course, try to overclock this chip on mini-ATX solutions, but the dense arrangement of radio components on them can lead to undesirable consequences: overheating motherboard and the central processor and their failure. As specific examples You can bring PC-AM2RD790FX from Sapphire or 790XT-G45 from MSI. Also, a worthy alternative to the previously mentioned solutions can be the M2N32-SLI Deluxe from Asus based on the nForce590SLI chipset developed by NVIDIA.

Cooling system

Overclocking an AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor is impossible without a high-quality cooling system. The cooler that goes to boxed version This chip is not suitable for these purposes. It is designed for a fixed thermal load. As CPU performance increases, its thermal package increases, and the standard cooling system will no longer cope. Therefore, you need to buy a more advanced one, with improved technical characteristics. We can recommend using the CNPS9700LED cooler from Zalman for these purposes. If you have it, this processor can be safely overclocked to 3100-3200 MHz. In this case, there will definitely not be any special problems with CPU overheating.

Thermal paste

Another important component to consider before AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200+ is thermal paste. After all, the chip will not operate in normal load mode, but in a state of increased performance. Accordingly, more stringent requirements are put forward for the quality of thermal paste. It should provide improved heat dissipation. For these purposes, it is recommended to replace the standard thermal paste with KPT-8, which is perfect for overclocking conditions.

Frame

The AMD Athlon 64 x2 5200 processor will run at higher temperatures during overclocking. In some cases it can rise to 55-60 degrees. To compensate for this increased temperature, a high-quality replacement of thermal paste and cooling system will not be enough. You also need a housing in which air flows can circulate well, and this will provide additional cooling. That is, inside system unit There should be as much free space as possible, and this would allow cooling of the computer components through convection. It will be even better if additional fans are installed in it.

Overclocking process

Now let's figure out how to overclock the AMD ATHLON 64 x2 processor. Let's find out this using the example of the 5200+ model. The CPU overclocking algorithm in this case will be as follows.

1. When you turn on the PC, press the Delete key. After this it will open blue screen BIOS.
2. Then we find the section associated with the operation of RAM and reduce the frequency of its operation to a minimum. For example, the value for DDR1 is set to 333 MHz, and we lower the frequency to 200 MHz.
3. Next, save the changes made and load operating system. Then, using a toy or test program(for example, CPU-Z and Prime95) we check the performance of the PC.
4. Reboot the PC again and go into the BIOS. Here we now find an item related to work PCI buses, and fix its frequency. In the same place you need to fix this indicator for the graphics bus. In the first case the value should be set to 33 MHz.
5. Save the settings and restart the PC. We check its functionality again.
6. The next step is to reboot the system. We re-enter the BIOS. Here we find the parameter associated with the HyperTransport bus and set the system bus frequency to 400 MHz. Save the values ​​and restart the PC. After loading the OS, we test the stability of the system.
7. Then we reboot the PC and enter the BIOS again. Here you now need to go to the processor parameters section and increase the system bus frequency by 10 MHz. Save the changes and restart the computer. Checking the stability of the system. Then, gradually increasing the processor frequency, we reach the point where it stops working stably. Next, we return to the previous value and test the system again.
8. Then you can try to further overclock the chip using its multiplier, which should be in the same section. At the same time, after each change to the BIOS, we save the parameters and check the functionality of the system.

If during overclocking the PC starts to freeze and it is impossible to return to previous values, then you need to reset the BIOS settings to factory settings. To do this, just find at the bottom of the motherboard, next to the battery, a jumper labeled Clear CMOS and move it for 3 seconds from pins 1 and 2 to pins 2 and 3.

Checking system stability

Not only the maximum temperature of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor can lead to unstable operation of the computer system. The reason may be due to a number of additional factors. Therefore, during the overclocking process, it is recommended to conduct a comprehensive check of the reliability of the PC. The Everest program is best suited to solve this problem. It is with its help that you can check the reliability and stability of your computer during overclocking. To do this, it is enough to run this utility after each change made and after loading the OS and check the status of the system’s hardware and software resources. If any value is outside the acceptable limits, then you need to restart the computer and return to the previous parameters, and then test everything again.

Cooling system monitoring

The temperature of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor depends on the operation of the cooling system. Therefore, after completing the overclocking procedure, it is necessary to check the stability and reliability of the cooler. For these purposes, it is best to use the SpeedFAN program. It is free and its level of functionality is sufficient. Downloading it from the Internet and installing it on your PC is not difficult. Next, we launch it and periodically, for 15-25 minutes, control the number of revolutions of the processor cooler. If this number is stable and does not decrease, then everything is fine with the CPU cooling system.

Chip temperature

The operating temperature of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor in normal mode should vary from 35 to 50 degrees. During overclocking, this range will decrease towards the last value. At a certain stage, the CPU temperature may even exceed 50 degrees, and there is nothing to worry about. The maximum permissible value is 60 ˚С, when approaching it, it is recommended to stop any experiments with overclocking. A higher temperature value can adversely affect the semiconductor chip of the processor and damage it. To take measurements during the operation, it is recommended to use the CPU-Z utility. Moreover, temperature registration must be carried out after each change made to the BIOS. You also need to maintain an interval of 15-25 minutes, during which you periodically check how hot the chip is.

Athlon 64 X2 is outdated, both physically and mentally. Such devices
were presented back in 2006. These were the first multi-core solutions
AMD company. Assessing their importance today is not particularly difficult. Their release was the first evolutionary step of this manufacturer in the field of high-tech solutions. It was he who significantly influenced the development of the computer industry. Nowadays you won’t surprise anyone with an 8-core CPU. This has already become the norm. But then such a decision produced a kind of revolution, the fruits of which we still enjoy to this day.

Story

The first 2-core CPU in the home PC niche was the product of AMD's eternal competitor, Intel. It was a Pentium processor with the index XE 840. It was installed in which was the main one for this manufacturer at that time. The increase in the number of cores has caused the need to reduce this, resulting in decreased performance in single-threaded applications. A similar result was obtained by the product of its constant competitor - the AMD Athlon 64 X2 processor. But due to the fact that such solutions were initially oriented towards multi-threading, the effect was not as strong as that of the main competitor. With the emergence of software that is capable of fully loading two physical cores, the balance of power gradually changed. And such solutions gradually replaced CPUs with 1 core from use. Yes, such devices are still sold now, but they are mostly used for office PCs, where work in office applications and the low cost of the finished system come to the fore. And for gaming systems it is recommended to take 4, 6 or 8 cores. As a last resort, you can opt for 2 cores, but this will significantly affect the quality of the game and not for the better. This arrangement was laid out more than 5 years ago, and one of its founders was the AMD Athlon 64 X2 processor.

Modifications

Initially, such CPUs were installed in which was the most progressive from this manufacturer at that time. 4 processor models were immediately presented. The youngest of them was the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200. The rest had a similar name, but differed in index. Modifications 4400, 4600 appeared, and the flagship of this line had the index 4800. Also, a mandatory attribute of the designations of these CPUs was “+”, which was added at the end of the name. The frequency of the base model was 2200 MHz. Also among the architectural features it is worth noting the cache, the size of which in the younger model was 1MB. Moreover, each of the cores accounted for only half of it. Other modifications boasted higher frequencies and larger cache sizes.

Later decisions

A little later, more productive products appeared on the market. A logical development in this direction was the emergence of such CPUs for the AM2 platform. Their cache size was similar to that of their predecessor. But the frequencies increased significantly and amounted, for example, for the CPU of the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000 model to 2700 MHz. Also another innovation was support for new memory, which was called DDR2. But, in principle, these processors, the period between the appearance of which is slightly less than 2 years, have a lot in common.

Conclusion

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 processor is one of the founders of the era of parallel computing on a single chip. If you look closely at it, you can easily find a lot in common with new AMD solutions. And there is nothing surprising here, because they are built according to a similar architecture, which over the past 5 years has undergone certain changes, but also retained common features.