AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition Processor ADO5000DSWOF

The top frequency AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 processor takes performance to the next level for Enthusiasts. AMD is pushing the 65nm process technology to new limits. Work or play with multiple programs without any stalling or waiting. Dual-core technology is like having two processors, and two working together is better and faster than one working alone.

Enormous Overclocking Potential. "The 5000+ Black Edition is the ideal choice for users who wish to upgrade their existing AM2 systems. Thanks to its low power dissipation even when overclocked, buying a new cooling solution is unnecessary. Furthermore, the low heat generation also means the system will not become much noisier as a result of your overclocking experiments." - Bert Töpelt; tomshardware.com, 10/22/2007

Note: This Processor is sold without a Heatsink or Fan.

Go beyond just keeping up. Set the pace. Your music is all MP3s, your DVR runs the TV, your life is on the PDA. You need to download music, copy video files, and update your schedule and contacts. The computer has become the center of your digital lifestyle, don’t let it slow you down. AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processors let you run the software you need to connect your gadgets quickly, seamlessly, and simultaneously — without compromising performance. Multitask like you mean it. Multitasking has been taken to an all new level with AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core processors. Now, you can tackle multiple demanding applications even faster than before – getting more out of your time and experience. Own the game. Your destiny is in your hands with the AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor 5000+ Black Edition. You can immerse yourself in intense 3D games and bring new worlds of entertainment to life.

Extend the value of your PC – whether building a new PC or upgrading an older one choose AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor 5000+.

Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core processor

Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core processor
The Intel® Pentium® dual-core processor delivers great desktop performance, low power enhancements, and multitasking for everyday computing.

Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor QX9770

Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor QX9770
Get untouchable desktop performance from Intel's latest Extreme processor. Play games, edit high definition video and easily tackle the most demanding multitasking environments like never before.


Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor
For extreme computing. Enjoy revolutionary levels of performance enabling vivid, high-definition experiences and multi-tasking responsiveness from state-of-the-art Intel dual-core and quad-core technologies.

Intel® Core™2 Quad processor
Multimedia enthusiasts, prepare to enthuse. Bring quad-core performance to your desktop with the Intel® Core™2 Quad processor. It's the ideal engine for highly threaded entertainment applications and highly productive multitasking.

Intel® Core™2 Duo processor
The power to perform. With power-optimized enabled dual-core technology and exceptional energy efficiency, the Intel® Core™2 Duo processor excels running the most intense applications.

Intel® C++ Software Development Tool

The Intel® C++ Software Development Tool Suite for Linux* OS Supporting Mobile Internet Devices (MID) is a complete tools solution set to address MID software performance requirements, and to enhance the productivity and experience of the Linux-based MID system and application development process. The Tool Suite covers the entire cycle of software development: coding, compiling, debugging, and analyzing performance. All included tools are Linux hosted and compatible with GNU tools. The Tool Suite is available for free download. To initiate your product download, read and accept the License Agreement. Support is also available for the Tool Suite. To see the support options, refer to the Support section of this page. Product Brief [PDF 255KB]

Features and Benefits

The Intel® C++ Software Development Tool Suite for Linux* OS Supporting Mobile Internet Devices is a complete set of tools that covers the entire cycle of software development, addresses MID software performance requirements, and provides efficiency and productivity in the MID system and application software development process. The following figure shows the components of the Tool Suite.

AMD vs. Intel: It's An Eternal Struggle So Get Used To It

(These opinions are those of the writer and they probably differ from yours. If you feel the need to flame Colin into a piece of smouldering charcoal, please direct your e-mail's here.)

I find it very amusing when I get an email calling me an AMD zealot or saying that I am biased towards AMD. I have never considered myself "loyal" to either AMD or Intel, I simply go with whomever is faster.

Since I upgrade my motherboard and/or CPU pretty much every six months I have an interesting dilemma... Should I stick with an AMD setup and get a Thoroughbred processor or should I perhaps do something more radical and go with a Pentium 4? Here are a few of the things I contemplated while making my decision.

Performance:

Like many others I was caught up in the hype surrounding the "Thoroughbred" 0.13 micron AthlonXP based processor. I honestly thought it would bring AMD back into the spotlight and allow them to retake the performance crown from Intel. However, after playing with a Thoroughbred I was brought back down to reality. Why would a shrunken core (0.18 micron Palomino to 0.13 micron T-Bred) improve performance by leaps and bounds? It wouldn't since AMD didn't add any features to the core.

I was not a fan of Intel's Pentium 4 processor when it came out about 2 years ago. I didn't like the longer pipeline which resulted in lower IPC each MHz could handle. Because of this the P4 had a very rocky start, the 1.5 GHz Williamette (0.18 micron, 256 L2 cache) P4 could barely out perform Intel's own Pentium III 1 GHz!

Coming back to the present, now with lots of software supporting SSE2 and with the introduction of the Northwood (0.13 micron, 512KB L2 cache) Pentium 4, things are totally different. Clock for clock the P4 is still not as powerful as the Athlon but it's much closer. Also thanks to the new core's ability to clock high, Intel has retaken the performance crown away from AMD and doesn't look like they'll be losing it any time soon.

Previously in this series AMD vs Intel: It's An Eternal Struggle (August 2002) AMD Vs Intel: Will the Best CPU Please Stand Up? (June 2006) AMD VS Intel: What to Get? Which is Better? (September 2007)

I know AMD loyalists will scream this "Ya, Intel has the performance crown, but their CPU's run 700-800 MHz higher then AMD's! That's not fair, also you can overclock an Athlon to beat a P4." First, life's not fai r- that should be pretty obvious and so what if Intel CPU's need to run 700-800 MHz higher in order to beat an AthlonXP 2200+ (1.8 GHz)? Faster performance is faster performance and Intel's wearing the crown at the moment. AMD CPU's do overclock well and they're more fun to play with thanks to the ability to unlock the multiplier but you can also overclock P4's. Almost all 1.6A's out there can hit 2.4 GHz without even breaking a sweat, and many even can do 2.7 GHz!

With both processors overclocked, Intel still wins in terms of performance. Of course AMD's saving grace has always been price. AMD based systems and CPU's have always been a much better value, and they still are.

Cooling:

This is a place where Intel is far and away way superior to AMD. Of course, as they are a much larger company Intel can hire more dedicated engineers to design cooling solutions for their CPU's - but have you actually looked at the heatsink/fan's that come with retail boxed P4's and AMD processors?

The retail Intel heatsink is just designed so well. Not only does it have a massive amount of surface area to draw away the heat a P4 produces (highly clocked P4's can generate close to what high end AMD CPU's do), it also acts as a huge EMI shield! They're so good that even enthusiasts are using them to cool their overclocked processors! Another nice thing is just how quiet the fan is. In an enclosed case it's often almost impossible to hear it.

AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel on this, of course though I do understand that AMD is much smaller and cannot devote their engineer's time to designing better thermal solutions. They're moving in the right direction though, from those cheap generic heatsinks to Skive based models, to now requiring heatsinks to have a copper base in order to get AMD approval.

One problem AMD has is actually not their fault. If you go to your local "mom and pop" computer store look at the AMD based systems they have on sale. Often hidden away in the specifications is the CPU cooler. You're more likely to get an OEM AMD CPU rather then a retail one because OEM's are usually quite a bit cheaper so what they do is just slap on some generic cooler like the Thermaltake Volcano 6+ (I chose this cooler because a few of the local stores I frequent use this heatsink because of its low price). Most of these shops also include secondary fans to help keep things cool and again another fan add's to the decibel level.

Another point to keep in mind is how fragile the AMD CPU is. When's the last time you heard of someone that killed a P4 or P3 with heat? Or maybe having a heatsink crush the core? Now think about the horror stories you've heard about from AMD based processors... I know I remember !

Hardware websites and benchmarks are cheating AMD...

I don't frequent forums much myself anymore but whenever I see people claiming that the benchmarks being used are skewed towards Intel, it really makes my blood boil. That has got to be the most uninformed thing I've ever heard. Yes, there's a huge conspiracy against AMD and all the hardware sites are secretly being paid off by Intel to run "Intel based benchmarks", that's the only reason why Intel beats AMD... ludicrous!

Most software like the MadOnion benchmarks (PCMark, 3DMark) have SSE2 optimization but is that cheating? They also have 3D Now! code written in them too! How about the notorious SysMark2001 with the Windows Media Encoder 7.0 not using AthlonXP's SSE? AMD themselves stated that SysMark 2001 is a valid benchmark, AMD did release a patch to allow Media Encoder 7.0 to use SSE but they liked the original SysMark 2001 because even without using SSE, the Athlon scored well and it showed off the mighty FPU of the Athlon.

Quake III Arena does love the bandwidth available to the Pentium 4, it always has, but that is something which is isolated to that one game. Games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Jedi Knight II which use the Q3 engine don't show the same signs of loving the P4.

Like it or not SSE2 is here to stay, heck Intel even licensed SSE2 to AMD to run in their "Hammer" line of processors!

Time to set the record straight...

"Oh no, Colin has turned 180 degrees and is now a total Intel fanatic!!!" I'm sure that's what a lot of you will be saying after reading this. No, I'm not biased towards Intel, I'm simply trying to point out some facts. I don't love either company, Intel or AMD, but I do like them. They're good for each other. Just think about a world where only Intel or AMD exists. With a virtual monopoly on x86 processors, who's going to stop either company from charging you through the nose for processors? I actually like AMD more then Intel, AMD seems to listen to the public on what they want and in general they usually do try and deliver. Intel on the other hand seems a little more arrogant, pushing things down people's throat (RDRAM + P3...) instead of listening.

When people e-mail me asking about systems, I almost always tell them to go with an AMD based system. Why? AMD is, and probably always will be a better value then Intel. Value doesn't mean lousy performance either! AMD CPU's are damn fast and can give Pentium 4's a good run for its money but in the end P4's are faster!

In terms of CPU "care" Intel has this down. Their retail heatsinks are designed very well, not only to cool the CPU but the larger foot print of the socket 478 heatsinks helps shield against EMI. AMD has a lot of catching up to do. They're moving in the right direction in terms of heatsinks, the current ones bundled with the Thoroughbred XP2200+'s are a heck of a lot better in design and cooling capability then the ones that originally came with the AthlonXP (Palomino core). AMD CPU's still have severe heat issues to conquer; even the Thoroughbred (0.13 micron) runs extremely high. At those temperatures it takes only a few seconds before the little processor dies of over heating.

As an independent hardware tester and reviewer I'm quite offended when someone attacks my integrity. The benchmarks that are being used on the web are not biased towards Intel just because they use SSE2. if I wasn't allowed to test with SSE2 enabled benchmarks, it would be like testing a car's top speed without using the 5th or 6th gears.

I'm not biased towards Intel but since with all the crap floating around I just wanted to try and set the record straight. This is more of a personal rant then anything else, but hey, I'm also a consumer. If you want to flame me and my opinions you're more than welcome to e-mail me here.

Oh and just for the record, I went with a P4 1.8A which runs at 2.4 GHz on an Abit TH7II-RAID with 512MB PC1066 RDRAM and it's running faster (and quieter) then my AthlonXP 2000+ on an Abit KR7A-RAID with 512 PC2100 CL2 DDR.... for the moment that is.

Check out the most recent word on the street about processors right here, the latest memory technology here, motherboards at the end of this link, and heatsinks and cooling solutions at FrostyTech.

Find out about this and many other reviews by joining the Weekly PCstats.com Newsletter today! Catch all of PCSTATS latest reviews right here.

Core 2 Extreme Quad Performance

Earlier this week, Intel announced the Core 2 Extreme Quad processor (code-named Kentsfield), a single-socket processor built with two Core 2 CPU dies. The two dies are connecting via a 1066MHz (effective) front-side-bus (FSB). Intel claims that the 1066MHz FSB will have more than enough bandwidth to feed both cores, even in heavy operation.

You can think of the QX6700 Quad as a pair of Core 2 E6700 dies built into one CPU package. The clock frequency and front-side-bus speed are the same. Both dies each have 4MB of L2 cache. The L2 cache is shared between the two cores on the same die, but not shared across dies. This really is very much a repeat of the original Intel Smithfield CPU, which paired two Pentium 4 dies into a single package and dubbed it a dual-core CPU.

CPU architects, marketers, and users can argue whether or not Kentsfield is a "true" quad core, but from the perspective of motherboards and software, it's a quad-core CPU. You can even install Windows XP Home Edition, which only "sees" a single CPU socket, on a system with a QX6700, though that would be something of a waste.

The Basics
The full product name, as we noted earlier, is the Core 2 Extreme Quad QX6700. This is in line with Intel's current naming scheme for CPUs, although they never called the previous Core 2 Extreme a "Duo."

The CPU will clock at 2.66GHz with a 1066MHz effective FSB and may require a new motherboard. Intel noted that their new motherboard is an updated version of the D975XBX, which has been re-engineered to support the quad-core processor as well as DDR2/800 support. (Previous versions of the board would only support DDR2/667). It's likely that some Intel 965P-based boards will also support the QX6700, but we haven't received confirmation of that yet.

It's likely that motherboards using the Intel 975X chipset and currently advertised as "Quad Core Ready" will work fine with the QX6700.

The QX6700 is rated for at 125 TDP (thermal design power), which is slightly less than the old Pentium Extreme Edition 965 CPU. However, unless you're running four copies of Prime 95, it's unlikely that all four cores will be running full-out all the time. Some of the boutique PC vendors have clocked the CPU up to 3.2GHz on air and 3.73GHz with liquid cooling.

Since this is basically two Conroe dies in one package, it has a total of 8MB of L2 cache, with 4MB dedicated to each die. The CPU offers smart power management, so unused parts of the CPU, and entire unused cores, can be idled as needed.

The Intel and AMD CPU Contenders

Let's compare the offerings from Intel and AMD. As it turns out, each manufacturer's official product line contains exactly the same number of processors. The prices don't precisely correlate, which is part of the problem when you're trying to choose which processor works best for you. Note that these prices were taken from several Internet sites, and the lowest one picked.

Intel Core 2 Duo Frequency Price AMD Athlon 64 X2 AM2 Frequency Price


E6300 1.83GHz $190 3800+ 2.0GHz $152


E6400 2.13GHz $230 4200+ 2.2GHz $187


E6600 2.40GHz $360 4600+ 2.4GHz $253


E6700 2.67GHz $559 5000+ 2.6GHz $346


Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz $1,075 FX-62 2.8GHz $825

As you can see from the table, there really isn't a clean correlation in pricing between the two vendors' models. Within the mainstream part of the line, you could say that the E6600 occupies the same pricing space as the Athlon 64 X2 5000+. But Intel's E6700 is cheaper than the FX-62, while the Core 2 Extreme E6800 is more expensive. Also, Intel only has one processor under the $200 price point, while AMD has two. Still, it's useful to look at these side-by-side.

AMD has also just launched the Athlon 64 X2 5200+, which wasn't available at the time we tested these CPUs. The only difference between the 5200+ and the 5000+ is that the 5200+ offers 2 × 1MB of L2 cache (2MB total), compared with the 2 × 512KB of the 5000+. Both processors clock at 2.6GHz, so it's unlikely you'd see much difference in most applications. AMD's pricing for the 5200+ is $403 in quantity 1,000.

Note that there are some key differences among the various CPUs. On the AMD side, only the FX-62 sports 1MB of L2 cache per core. The rest of the product line offers 512KB of L2 cache per core. That's the official story—currently. You can still find the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ CPUs, which clocks at 2.0GHz (same as the 3800+) and has 2 × 1MB of L2 cache, but that product isn't being manufactured currently. Since the 4000+ is being phased out, we didn't include it in our roundup. AMD's processors are built on the company's 90nm SOI process.

On the Intel side, the two lower-end CPUs—the 1.83GHz E6300 and 2.13GHz E6400—offer only 2MB of shared L2 cache, while the E6600, E6700, and X6800 have 4MB of L2 cache. All of Intel's Core 2 Duo products are currently manufactured on 65nm technology.

Availability
Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup is now widely available, both in OEM versions and full, retail boxed products. We've seen the entire product line sitting on a shelf in one Silicon Valley reseller; they're also readily available online.

The same can't be said for the entire range of Athlon 64 X2 products. Most are easy to find, include the top-of-the-line FX-62. The one bleak spot in AMD's picture is the seeming lack of 5000+ parts. Almost all the sites we checked had long lead times, and the one site that had some in stock was charging over $600—nearly double AMD's official price.

We contacted AMD, and they were adamant that the issue wasn't yield of the 5000+ CPUs, but rather a "temporary supply chain problem." While AMD's spokesperson wouldn't admit it, we suspect that Dell is eating up all the Athlon 64 X2 5000+'s AMD can supply. Once pent-up demand for "AMD" Dells subsides, the scarcity of retail 5000+ CPUs will likely ease.

Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD X2 AM2

Choosing the right CPU for your needs isn't always an easy task. If we all had bottomless wallets, it would be easy just to pick the ultra-high end CPUs and be done with it. But most of us have to budget our purchases, and it's always a delicate dance to figure out what's the best fit for what you do. Also, the CPU isn't the only piece of the puzzle. Rather, it's a shifting matrix of choices we make. If I'm a gamer, do I step down one notch in CPU power and pick up a slightly faster graphics card? If I'm a video editor, will running a faster CPU make up for somewhat smaller storage? If I'm an average PC user, would more memory be more useful than a faster CPU?

This balancing act is difficult to perform in the absence of data. Today, we're taking a look at the CPU side of the equation. We vary the processor, but keep everything else in the system as constant as possible. The key difference is core logic and processor, which are inseparable.

We took a look at the performance of the high-end processors in our initial review of Intel's Core 2 Duo back in July. Later, Jason Cross went in-depth on the gaming side, pitting the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ against Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 in our Real Gaming Challenge. Now we dive back into our comprehensive benchmark suite, running a wide array of performance tests across the entire range of Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD Athlon 64 X2 AM2 processors. AMD has the price edge, but is that enough to overcome Intel's performance lead? How well do the various CPUs scale across the product line? We try to address.

IR PWM chip supports AMD, Intel processors

International Rectifier (IR) introduced a two-phase interleaved pulse width modulation (PWM) control IC that supports the AMD Athlon, AMD Athlon64, AMD Opteron and Intel VR10.X processors. Applications include server and desktop computer motherboards, voltage regulator modules (VRM), video graphics cards and telecom single in-line package (SIP) modules.

According to IR, the IR3092 is suitable for space-constrained systems with high load current and efficiency requirements. Compared to other devices that require external gate drive circuits, the IR3092 includes integrated MOSFET drivers with 3.5A drive capability. Existing two-phase solutions that are implemented with three ICs can now be replaced with a single IR3092 improving system reliability, reducing board area and simplifying circuit design, the company added. A patent-pending body braking circuit reduces the output capacitance requirement by up to 25 percent.

"The IR3092 uniquely meets the challenge of powering Intel's advanced Prescott microprocessors by providing up to 80A with a 2-phase integrated power architecture," said Ralph Monteiro, Marketing Manager for dc-dc computing products.

Output voltage programmed with 5-bit or 6-bit VID code

The IR3092 operates from a single 12V supply and includes a linear regulator to power the gate drivers. The regulator output voltage can be programmed to minimize switching losses and optimize efficiency, and the programmable oscillator (with a frequency range of 100kHz to 540kHz) gives the designer additional flexibility to improve system efficiency and transient response.

For system protection and reliability, the new device features programmable soft-start and hiccup over-current protection. Current sensing is achieved with loss-less inductor current sensing which gives improved accuracy compared to sensing circuits measuring MOSFET on-resistance. Dual undervoltage lockout circuits and overvoltage protection ensure reliability of system voltages, while a power-good output signal indicates proper operation.

To meet the power requirements of today's microprocessors, the output voltage can be programmed with either a five or six-bit voltage identification (VID) code with 0.5 percent set-point accuracy. An adaptive voltage-positioning feature maintains the output voltage tolerance while minimizing output capacitor requirements. The chip is also capable of 100 percent duty cycle operation to further improve transient response. In addition, the IR3092 features programmable slew rate response to "on-the-fly" VID code changes.

Available in a 7-by-7mm MLPQ-48 package, the PWM IC is priced at $2.50 each in 10,000-piece quantities.