Motherboards for AMD AM2. Comparative Testing Motherboards for AMD Socket AM2 Socket AM2 Processors Motherboards Overview

In 2006, maternal manufacturers for aMD processors Socket AM2 collided with certain difficulties in terms of positioning their products. The fact is that the release of the new Intel Core 2 Duo architecture led to the full capture of the high-end sector intel processors. Most computer enthusiasts, with the exception of Yary AMD fans, moved to CONROE and ALLENDALE processors, which provided the best level of performance with minimal heat generation. In addition, the potential of overclocking of these processors was high, and at a frequency of 3.0 GHz, their performance was inaccessible for AMD processors.

The latter made the only possible, in this situation, the step - sharply reduced the price on athlon processors 64. As a result, all AMD processors are located in the Low- and middle-end market sector, where they feel good. In particular, the Athlon64 3500+ model costs about $ 100 and provides an acceptable level of performance for the needs of the home user. Accordingly, those who want to save the AMD platform as one of the attractive options. However, the benefit from the acquisition of AMD system is not so sensible if you compare the cost of the finished computer. The fact is that the cost of High-End the motherboard for AM2 is in the same range as the cost of the Intel board (i.e. more than $ 200). And ultimately, the difference of $ 150 becomes simply imperceptible when comparing the cost of the system assembly. Moreover, if you consider in the calculations the most accessible AMD dual-core processor (Athlon64 X2 3600+ Dual Core, 2 GHz), then the price difference becomes even less (about $ 100).

On the other hand, the central processor is not the most important component of the system, and, in many cases, it is much more useful to spend $ 100-150 to a better power supply unit, a more powerful video card or larger memory. In other words, AMD processors, though they lost the title of "best processor" (which they constantly owned during the heyday of the Intel Netburst architecture), but did not lose their attractiveness for the user. In addition, AMD enters the release of processors for a more subtle technical process (65 NM), which theoretically will increase the clock frequencies and overclocking potential. At the same time, new processors will be compatible with the AM2 connector, which will make the upgrade in the future.

Thus, we approach a certain conclusion: despite the high cost of motherboards under AM2, the AMD platform itself is in demand for a specific part of users.

Chipsets

Currently, the leading positions in the market of chipsets for AMD systems holds NVIDIA with its NForce 5XX line. Moreover, the positions of this company were strengthened after the purchase of ULI: in a short time, the latter's range was revised, and the first products under the NVIDIA brand were sold. Our review presents one such fee on the NVIDIA M1697 chipset.

The only serious competitor NVIDIA was ATI. However, her "chipset" unit did not have time to produce products capable of giveing \u200b\u200ba "battle" chipsets of the NForce series. In particular, the XPress 3200 MVP top chipset was announced almost a year ago, in March 2006. And if the characteristics of the northern bridge also corresponded to modern requirements, the ATI engineers have experienced permanent problems with the southern bridge. The latest product was the ATI SB600, which, as seen from the table, cannot compete with the NForce series by expansion.

Subsequently, ATI was purchased by AMD. Restructuring did not benefit, and did not speed up the release of new products. To demonstrate some kind of activity, AMD marketers renamed ATI Xpress 3200 MVP in AMD 580x CrossFire and were limited. As a result, even without having accurate figures on the marketing of the market between various chipsets, it can be said that NVIDIA products definitely holds the championship. Just look at the range of leading maternal manufacturers. For example, a couple of dozen ASUS boards on various versions of NForce 5xx, there is only one charge on the AMD 580x CrossFire chipset.

	NVIDIA NFORCE 590 SLI	ATI Xpress 3200 MVP + ATI SB600	NVIDIA NFORCE 570 SLI	NVIDIA NFORCE 570 ULTRA	NVIDIA NFORCE 550.	NVIDIA M1697
Architecture	Two chips	Two chips	One chip	One chip	One chip	One chip
Support two video cards	SLI (2x 16 lines)	Crossfire (2x 16 lines)	SLI (2x 8 lines)	- (*)	-	-
Support nVIDIA technologies LinkBoost ™.	+	-	-	-	-	-
Tire support PCI EXPRESS.	46 lines (9 channels)	40 lines	28 lines (6 channels)	20 lines (5 channels)	20 lines (5 channels)	20 lines
PCI support	5 devices	6 devices	5 devices	5 devices	5 devices	5 devices
Paramellata support		ATA-33/66 / 100/133 (1 channel)	ATA-33/66 / 100/133 (1 channel)	ATA-33/66 / 100/133 (1 channel)	ATA-33/66 / 100/133 (1 channel)	ATA-33/66 / 100/133 (2 channels)
Support Serialata II.	6 channels	4 channels	6 channels	6 channels	4 channels	4 channels
RAID support	0,1,0+1,5	0,1,0+1,5	0,1,0+1,5	0,1,0+1,5	0,1,0+1	0,1,0+1
NVIDIA MEDIASHIELD ™ Support	+	-	+	+	+	-
Support USB2.0.	10 ports	10 ports	10 ports	10 ports	8 ports	8 ports
Support Gigabit Ethernet	2	1	2	2	1	10/100 Fast Ethernet
Support NVIDIA FIRSTPACKET ™ technology	+	-	+	+	-	-
NVIDIA DUALNET® technology support	+	-	+	+	-	-
Sound		High Defenition Audio (Azalia)	High Defenition Audio (Azalia)	High Defenition Audio (Azalia)	High Defenition Audio (Azalia)	High Defenition Audio (Azalia)
NVIDIA NTUNE ™ Utility Support	+	-	+	+	+	-

(*) - There are potential support for SLI technology (requires hardware modification of the motherboard).

The relatively long life and good stability of the "Methodology 5.0" led to the fact that all current families of processors were tested with it (and in some cases it is not at all one-two representatives of each), and even time left to do Excursors in history :) In general, from a practical point of view, they are not less important than the tests of new products - many old platforms still have and work, so the question, "how many in grams" you can win in the upgrade, to Celebrate does not apply. And for an accurate answer to it, it is necessary to know the performance of new processors, and what the level of obsolete. You can, of course, take advantage of the results of the tests of tests, but they all belong to the same long-time popular software versions, and it should be changed. Therefore, new tests are needed. It is difficult to carry out quite difficult - and the processors themselves must still be found, and the other environment for ensuring the requirements of the technique to prepare. Therefore, for example, in the framework of the basic version of the test methodology, we can not affect Socket 754, since it is impossible to find 8 GB DDR SDRAM and a fee on which it all works. There is a similar problem with Socket 939, but to manage with a more new one (but, in principle, the equivalent previous on the performance) of the AM2 platform is possible. What we, in fact, today and we will deal with the benefit and suitable processors managed to find as much five pieces. More precisely, seven, but two were too knocked out of the total row in terms of performance, why were considered last time. And today - the era of the late AM2 and even am2 +.

Configuration of test posted stands

CPU	Athlon 64 x2 3800+	Athlon 64 x2 5200+	Athlon 64 FX-62	Athlon 64 x2 6000+
Name nucleus	Windsor	Windsor	Windsor	Windsor
Technology pr-va	90 nm	90 nm	90 nm	90 nm
Core frequency, GHz	2,0	2,6	2,8	3,0
	2/2	2/2	2/2	2/2
Cache L1 (sums.), I / D, KB	128/128	128/128	128/128	128/128
Cache L2, KB	2 × 512.	2 × 1024.	2 × 1024.	2 × 1024.
RAM	2 × DDR2-800	2 × DDR2-800	2 × DDR2-800	2 × DDR2-800
Socket	AM2.	AM2.	AM2.	AM2.
TDP.	65 W.	89 W.	125 W.	125 W.

Unfortunately, not a single single-core Athlon 64 caught our hand. More precisely, one was discovered in stores, but his study showed that this is a model under Socket 939. And a pity, since the first time only such models and got into a mass segment - on The moment of the announcement of the platform is the minimum dual-core (which was 3800+) the company estimated already in 303 dollars (the reason is clear - before the release of Core 2 Duo has remained a few more months, and Pentium D had a lower performance than Athlon 64 x2). But the legendary 3800+ was found with us, and not even the ADA3800, and the ADO3800 was worth 20 dollars more, but had a TDP only 65 W, which was "cool" enough for the dual-core model.

Other younger "classic" 90 nm dual-core and in general, no representatives of 65 nm technical process, unfortunately, could not be found. So the conclusions on the dual-core family will have to be done on the basis of the "initial" 3800+ and three models formally (since two of them appeared after this family has lost the status of maximum performance devices) high level: 5200+, 6000+ and FX-62. Without the last, strictly speaking, it would be possible to do so, because no exclusive information would bring it to us to test - the clock frequency exactly in the middle between two other participants. But passing by the processor, which at the time of the announcement was sold at a price around 1250 (!) Dollars, having the opportunity not to pass, we could not. The legend is how-no. Albeit very devalued over the past years, but once the processor occupied his price bar on right, being the most productive X86 solution in the market.

CPU	Phenom X4 9500.	Phenom II x4 940
Name nucleus	Agena.	Deneb.
Technology pr-va	65 Nm	45 Nm
Core frequency, GHz	2,2	3,0
Number of nuclei / calculation flows	4/4	4/4
Cache L1 (sums.), I / D, KB	256/256	256/256
Cache L2, KB	4 × 512.	4 × 512.
Cache L3, MIB	2	6
Uncore frequency, GHz	1,8	1,8
RAM	2 × DDR2-1066.	2 × DDR2-1066.
Socket	AM2 +.	AM2 +.
TDP.	95 W.	125 W.

And for comparison, two models of subsequent generations are already Phenom. First damn room In the form of Phenom X4 9500 and breakthrough Phenom II X4 940. Again - the latter is not so interesting, since the Phenom II line under AM3 we were tested, and they differ only to the memory supported, but formally 940 - the best that was done under AM2 +. Almost many payments with this socket you can use more productive solutions, thanks to back compatibility two platforms, but the formal status is also a reason for dating :)

As for the first Phenom, we are the representative of the very first generation - with the so-called "TLB-Bag". Its discovery made the company go to the corrected Stepongue B3 (such models are easily distinguished by the fact that their number ends on "50"), and "patches" for BIOS have appeared to ensure the stable operation of the processors already sold. At one time, we tested one of the engineering samples of Phenom with the TLB-PATCH turned on and turned off and concluded that its use reduces performance on average by 21% (in some programs - at times). Well, since this error does not always spoil the user's life to the instability of the system, many naturally preferred at their own risk, if possible, disable this correction.

Unfortunately, when using modern software, it is already very difficult, unlike the Windows XP - Microsoft times, the error correction directly into their oS. It began with SP1 for Windows Vista. And, of course, moved in Windows 7. In principle, the ways to disable this "parking brake" exist, but we did not do it, because most of the users do not do. Yes, and from the point of view of testing processors in modern software, such tweaks do not belong to the right. But to remember about their ability, if someone still has to use a computer based on the first generation Phenom (and, according to reviews, performance increases on models with correct stepping), it is worth it. As well as the simple shutdown of TLB-PATCH in Setup when working under the modern Windows, Windows family is no longer affected ( fast check That we spent to make sure it). Or, by the way, this situation can be viewed as an extra reason not to hurry to establish a new OS on old computer, already not too fast so that it has a desire to work with the most "fresh" versions of applied software - it is better or "in old manner", or, nevertheless, to start an upgrade.

In general, such a set of subjects. Highly peashed in favor of the fastest models and at all that does not cover many of the once popular branches on the name tree of Athlon, however, that they managed to scrape, then we will test.

CPU	Celeron G530T.	Celeron G550.	Pentium G860.	Core i3-2120t
Name nucleus	Sandy Bridge. DC	Sandy Bridge DC.	Sandy Bridge DC.	Sandy Bridge DC.
Technology pr-va	32 nm	32 nm	32 nm	32 nm
Frequency of the nucleus GHz.	2,0	2,6	3,0	2,6
Number of nuclei / calculation flows	2/2	2/2	2/2	2/4
Cache L1 (sums.), I / D, KB	64/64	64/64	64/64	64/64
Cache L2, KB	2 × 256.	2 × 256.	2 × 256.	2 × 256.
Cache L3, MIB	2	2	3	3
Uncore frequency, GHz	2,0	2,6	3,0	2,6
RAM	2 × DDR3-1066.	2 × DDR3-1066.	2 × DDR3-1333.	2 × DDR3-1333.
Videos	HDG.	HDG.	HDG.	HDG 2000.
Socket	LGA1155.	LGA1155.	LGA1155.	LGA1155.
TDP.	35 W.	65 W.	65 W.	35 W.
Price	N / d (0)	N / d (0)	N / d ()	N / d ()

Who to compare with? From the modern production of Intel, we decided to take four processors. Celeron G530T and G550 - have the same clock frequency as Athlon 64 x2 3800+ and 5200+, respectively (the second pair also also the capacitance of the "lower" level cache coincides; True, Celeron is a common L3, and athlon is separate L2, but the number is the same). Pentium G860 is no longer the fastest from Intel processors, at least 100 dollars, after the appearance of the G870, but exactly 3 GHz frequencies, like 6000+. Well, for the completeness of the picture - another energy efficient processor, namely Core i3-2120t, operating at a frequency of 2.6 GHz, since most recently we compared it with Core 2 Duo of the same time as the older Athlon 64 x2, and indeed Direct comparison of equally-frequency G550, 2120T and 5200+ is extremely interesting and significant. It is clear that all these a priori models are somewhat lower than Phenom II X4, but this is a family (albeit in another constructive performance) in detail in detail, and with modern (and not very) Intel processors also compared repeatedly.

CPU	A4-3400.	A6-3670K.	Phenom II x2 545	Phenom II x3 740
Name nucleus	Llano.	Llano.	Callisto.	Heka.
Technology pr-va	32 nm	32 nm	45 Nm	45 Nm
Core frequency, GHz	2,7	2,7	3,0	3,0
Number of nuclei / calculation flows	2/2	4/4	2/2	3/3
Cache L1 (sums.), I / D, KB	128/128	256/256	128/128	192/192
Cache L2, KB	2 × 512.	4 × 1024.	2 × 512.	3 × 512.
Cache L3, MIB	-	-	6	6
Uncore frequency, GHz	-	-	2,0	2,0
RAM	2 × DDR3-1600.	2 × DDR3-1866.	2 × DDR3-1333.	2 × DDR3-1333.
Videos	Radeon HD 6410D.	Radeon HD 6530d.	-	-
Socket	FM1	FM1	AM3.	AM3.
TDP.	65 W.	100 W.	85 W.	95 W.
Price	N / d ()	N / d (0)	N / d ()	N / d (0)

And four more models from the AMD assortment. First, A4-3400 and A6-3670K. The second after a recent decline in prices "lives" at the level of the senior Pentium, and the first is comparable to Celeron. In addition, the FM1 platform is interesting for us because it offers a buyer and a good level of integrated graphics - higher, rather than the discrete of the am2 of the heyday. Accordingly, if someone has not yet risen the hand, throw out the five-year-old system unit, the fallen FM1 can be stimulated this process. Additional convenience - both processors operate on a clock frequency of 2.7 GHz, i.e., the batter between 5200+ and FX-62. And then in the list of subjects, two old Phenom II, working on a clock frequency of 3 GHz: X2 545 and X3 740. From a practical point of view, of course, to remember them already late, but with theoretical - will rise.

	Motherboard	RAM
AM2.	ASUS M3A78-T (790GX)	8 GB DDR2 (2 × 800; 5-5-5-18; ungged)
AM3.	ASUS M4A78T-E (790GX)	CORSAIR VENGEANCE CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2 × 1333; 9-9-9-24; ungged)
FM1	Gigabyte A75M-UD2H (A75)	G.Skill F3-14900CL9D-8GBXL (2 × 1866/1600; 9-10-9-28)
LGA1155.	Biostar Th67xe (H67)	CORSAIR VENGEANCE CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2 × 1333/1066; 9-9-9-24 / 8-8-8-20)

Frequency Note random access memory - Although officially all dual-core processors under the AM2 support DDR2-800, for 5200+ and 6000+ Real memory frequencies are somewhat different from the theoreticals: 746 and 752 MHz, respectively, which is associated with a limited set of dividers (as we have already mentioned last time). The difference from the standard regime, however, is small, but maybe somewhere and affecting the FX-62, working "canonically faithful," because its frequency is divided by 400 aimed (at 3800+, but it is natural, these "monster "A priori is not competitors). And all Phenom (and the first and second generations) support both DDR2-1066, but only in the configuration "one module on the channel" that we are not suitable for us: the required "according to the standard" for the method of 8 GB in two modules We failed to provide us. In general, too, little things, but we focus on them to reduce the number of subsequent questions :)

Testing

Traditionally, we break all the tests on a certain number of groups, and in diagrams, the average result for the tests / applications group (in detail with the test method you can find in a separate article). Results in diagrams are given in points, per 100 points adopted reference performance. test system Sample website 2011. It is based on the processor AMD Athlon. II X4 620, but the memory capacity (8 GB) and the video card () are standard for all testing of the "main line" and can vary only within the framework of special studies. Those who are interested in more detailed information, again traditionally is proposed to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all results are shown both in the data transformed into points and in the "natural" form.

Interactive work in three-dimensional packages

Almost the same results of three Phenom II once again show that more than two streams of calculation These tests are unable to dispose. It would seem the ideal situation for older Athlon 64 x2 - high-frequency dual-core processors with relatively large and rapid L2. But ... even 6000+ lags not only from A4-3400 with a frequency of 2.7 GHz, but also from a two-horse (!) Celeron G530T, but about the results of the others in such a situation can not be mentioned. In general, over the past years, processor architectures stepped far ahead (not simultaneously, but the general progress is not bad), which can not be taken into account. There were, of course, on this path and extremely unsuccessful steps, like the first Phenom. The lion's share of responsibility for failure 9500 lies at the "Pack" TLB, but even without it, the highest results of the first K10 do not count - low-frequency models with a small (according to modern standards) cache-memory capacity, and also slow. And the kernels here, repeat, are useless.

Final rendering of three-dimensional scenes

Here in these subtests - useful, but Phenom X4 9500 still managed to overtake only a part of dual-core processors, and that is not the fastest. The reason is simple - low frequency. Yes, and cache memory for these tasks is important. Although it is clear that although a carcass, even though These processors were necessary to produce (at a minimum, based on similar loads), since Athlon 64 X2 is even slower, and the AMD then did not have other processors. Later, Phenom II X4 turned out to be excellent work on errors, so that in quad-core modifications are still relevant. By the way, the fastest processors for the FM1 (Athlon II x4 651 and A8-3870K) in this group demonstrate the result of 124 points, i.e., almost the same as the "holders" of AM2 + has become available for nearly four years ago. Not so bad, in general, something :) Well, if, of course, not too much to leave the fact that the Core i7-920 appeared at a fairly close price of Core i7-920 is capable of 182 points.

Packaging and unpacking

Very indicative group of tests. First, the terrible results of Phenom X4 9500 were predetermined in advance: at one time, the inclusion of "patch" for TLB slowed down the engineering sample trip. However, without it, the Phenom at a frequency of 2.6 GHz (and not 2.2 as here) only slightly overthrew the Athlon 64 x2 6000+, so you can even say that over the past years, its indicators have improved a little, the reason for which is the support of multithreading new versions of 7-zip. But she did not allow (this is the second observation) Phenom II X4 940 to overtake at least a three-core Phenom II x3 740, having a greater frequency of cache memory and working with a faster RAM standard DDR3 standard. The third curious moment - Athlon 64 x2 6000+ dials exactly 100 points: like a lower frequency operating athlon II X4 620. But before Celeron and others like them with the same frequency, it does not come out. Yes, and A4-3400 (2.7 GHz, 2x512 KB L2) Athlon 64 x2 5200+ (2.6 GHz, 2x1024 KB L2).

Well, another curious result (albeit a little of another opera): Core i3-2120t is approximately equal to the Phenom II x3 740. Although the second twice as much capacity L3 is almost 15% higher than the frequency, and the kernel is three, that, with other things being equal Still, it is better than two kernels with Hyper-Threading.

Audio coding

Cash is notable - pure mathematics, so Phenom X4 9500 managed to demonstrate relatively good (within this article, of course) results: he bypassed all the processors we took to compare with the support of a smaller number of calculation streams, and working at a higher frequency of Core i3-2120T Do not radically faster. However, the dual-core Pentium G860 is not much slower at all, and the Phenom II X3 740 equal-frequency three-core trunnik, he also managed to overtake. Apparently, it was for this reason "classic" three-core processors ordered for a long time (three-module FX is a bit different story). And Athlon 64 x2 6000+ was able to overtake the Celeron G530T and A4-3400: new sets of teams and other improvements in modern architectures in these subtestas are not involved, so high frequency saved. Although, of course, if you recall that it is one and a half times higher than that of 530t ... But we will not be about sad - it is already more than enough. In particular, that all other Athlon 64, including the once legendary FX-62, for obvious reasons even slower. A 3800+ Only a little faster than modern single-core models (such as supported by HT Celeron G460 / G465), despite the pretriality of multi-core for this test group.

Compilation

In whose eyelids, FX-62 managed to bypass both Celeron G530T and A4-3400 - Pierry, but victory. In any case, compared to other test groups. It is worth paying attention to that this is that the FX-62 results are closer to 6000+ than 5,200+, although in terms of the core frequency, it is exactly in the middle between them - the features of the memory controller of the K8 line with such a load have a considerable value. Accordingly, the defeat of the Phenom X4 9500 was predetermined - the TLB-PATCH has "kills" the performance L3 that only the presence of four cores allowed this processor to overtake Athlon 64 x2 6000+ and even almost catch up with Celeron G550. Well, in the fact that Phenom II x4 940 will be the best of all testing participants, we also have no doubt - the frequency is high (the rest or the same or slower), four full-fledged nuclei and 6 MIB L3 speak for themselves.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

But here the benefits of multithreading are small, so that 940 only looked around 545, but behind 740. However, this is also a good result, albeit only for intra-revocative competition - a certain "prointelovskaya" essence in the packages of professional purpose is, and from this Do not go. But the AMD on the spot clearly did not stand - let the A4-3400 and the Celeron loses, but its "specific" (per unit of clock frequency) of the Athlon 64 x2 is about 20%.

Raster graphics

Part of the tests are multi-threaded, part - no, so from AMD products already already Phenom II X3 looks quite sufficient to solve such tasks: 940 was only a little faster than 740 due to slow memory and low cache frequencies, and the A6-3670K "hangs" on The level due to the complete lack of the last and lower clock frequency. But, generally speaking, high-frequency celeron and pentium look here are best here, and low-frequency are also good. The "old" AMD processors cannot save any frequency nor the number of nuclei - Athlon 64 x2 6000+, which has become already familiar, lags behind and from A4-3400.

Vector graphics

As we have already installed, these programs are undemanding to the number of calculation flows, but their productivity from cache-memory depends, so there is nothing surprising that three equally-frequency Phenom II showed close results with a small loss 940 - there is a frequency L3 below 200 MHz . But this is just the level of Sandy Bridge with a frequency of 2.6 GHz (I3 a little faster Celeron just due to the "extra" cache megabyte), and one of the best Athlon 64 X2 managed to overtake only A4-3400 and a two-rigal celeron. The remaining representatives of the ruler are even slower, and for Phenom X4 9500 such a load is inclined in inclusion - the larger the core frequency is low, and the TLB-Patch is not once on the performance of the cache memory. However, it is obvious that without him we would get the result only a little higher than athlon 64 x2 3800+, which is clearly not enough for competition with modern processors.

Video coding

Phenom X4 9500 once again managed to overtake some relatively modern dual-core processors: the cache it does not interfere with him here, and the nuclei, after all, four. But slow. Athlon 64 X2 "TLB-Bag" for obvious reasons cannot suffer, so that the correction of this error is also, however, they have an equally slow architecturally, and there are only two of them. And even the frequency does not help too much. The results of Athlon 64 x2 3800+ and 6000+ are especially indicative - equally-frequency Celeron G530T and Pentium G860 they are inferior almost twice. A 5200+ per third is slower than A4-3400 with a comparable clock frequency. In general, it seems big at a distance - just six with a small years ago a ruler, better than Athlon 64 x2 on the market was simply not, and now she is simply unable to compete even with budget models that the AMD itself is that Intel. Here the Phenom II X4 940 is capable of such with ease, but it is significantly more new processorAnd his fellow is now in the budget sector and live. Phenom II X4 955, for example, the company has been shipping from September by wholesale to 81 dollars, and what distinguishes it from 940? Only support for memory type DDR3 and +200 MHz to the nuclei and L3. By the way, I remember that at the time of the announcement, the recommended price of 940 was not much nor, and 275 full dollars - quickly in the modern world are devalued processors :)

Office PO

The overwhelming majority of tests of this group are single-threatening, and even intensive improvements of modern architectures are not using, so that for such an application, Athlon 64 x2 is quite enough. If, of course, electricity costs are not embarrassed - 6000+ traditionally lagged both from the G530T and from A4-3400, and this processors do not need a hundred watts at all. It is clear that the "old people" is also loaded with such work on the full, so it will cost several tens, but "several" - in their case more. And someone else will be needed additionally. But in general, it is enough for work. What is fully combined with the fact that in the offices, many still use a variety of Celeron or Sempron, and even slower than we recently tested. Accordingly, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ will be at least not worse, but when using some kind of voracious antivirus - much better :)

Java.

Phenom X4 9500 once again pulled a full, since the kernels are four, and the cache memory and its performance do not have much importance here, but in its case "fully" means only the result equal to Celeron G550. However, given that, as a rule, everything was much worse, and such a victory over himself (and above the pages) causes respect. What other participants? As usual: Athlon 64 x2 is unsuccessfully trying to catch up at least some modern budget processor, and Phenom II X4 demonstrates that it can be considered to be considered :)

Games

There was a time when Athlon 64 (not even x2) was the best game processors. Now, let's say directly, even Phenom II X4 and younger Core I3 can only claim "according to Blatu", not to mention dual-core models. Modern dual-core models. And not ancient, which and laptop processors can be considered competitors only in the terminology of Russian tender trading :) We'd better refrain about Phenom X4 9500 - as in the house of hanged it is not customary to talk about the rope and in the comments to the results of one of the most "cacheylubiive" Groups should not remember "TLB-martyrs".

Multitasking environment

By the way, even here, the height of the multi-core processors AMD failed to overtake earlier dual-core models of the same manufacturer - the last Chinese warning to buy "nuclei for the sake of perspective" without regard to what kind of kernels. Otherwise, everything, too, as usual - Athlon 64 x2 is unable to manage at least with two-huge Celeron or dual-core Llano (by the way, and the younger Athlon II X2 have the same performance as A4), and Phenom II X4 940 is just Phenom II x4 . Not bad processor for about hundreds dollars, albeit at one time almost three hundred - devaluation-s.

TOTAL

Ultimately, we have something that is expected - the interhesion of one-, two- and multi-threaded tests (which is, in fact, the exact projection of modern software; including the one that benchmarking is bad, and, therefore, test techniques just as bad fit) did best processor For Socket AM2 + approximately equal to equal Pentium. From this follow two conclusions - good and bad. The first is due to the fact that the compatibility of this platform with AM3 is almost complete - unlike system owners on the LGA775, the owners of a good motherboard with AM2 + and enough memory of the DDR2 type can upgrade their computer to a very good level. Not top, of course, but Phenom II X6 1100T has a "weighted average" productivity of 159 points, and Phenom II X4 980 - 143 points. Minus inevitable 5% (or so) for slower memory - we get somewhere 150 and 135 points. And the maximum for the LGA775 - 132 points. Yes, and that - only if you're lucky somewhere in the secondary market of Core 2 Quad Q9650 for a sane price, since "during life" it is lower than 316 dollars in bulk never lowered, and if it also will work on the available fee: despite called The same socket, LGA775 is four limited-compatible platforms (however, with the most old AM2 payments, the problem is also possible). AMD, on the contrary, continues to sell and 980, and 1100T - $ 163 and $ 198, respectively. To a certain extent, it was expensive, but if the system of replacing the system is replaced by a replacement system only, such costs may well be optimal (in any case, a new set of Core i5, fees with LGA1155 and memory will cost much more expensive).

And now bad news, directly flowing out of good - use fee with am2 + together with the processor under AM2 or AM2 + does not make any sense. And it is not necessary, even to look after the top models called the top models for AM3 - besides them in the Assortment AMD there is still a lot of things. And not only among new processors, but also among commodity residues of retail stores or in the secondary market. Where to buy any Athlon II X3 or even x4 is very cheap - once now the younger Phenom II X4 appreciates only 80-90 dollars. Is there any reason? Yes there is. After all, even the best Athlon 64 x2, as we have seen today, are inferior to A4-3400, and this processor is approximately equal to the Athlon II X2 215. Note - the best and x2. Well, replacement, for example, Athlon 64 x2 3800+ for a long time shot from the production of Athlon II x4 630 average performance is simply doubled.

It is clear that all these arguments are justified only when the available fee supports processors under AM3: otherwise the platform is easier to change (on LGA1155, FM1 or FM2 - without a special difference). And even more clearly, that in general it makes sense at all when the performance of the computer has already not enough. In the end, many still somehow use Pentium 4, Athlon XP or there Celeron and Sempron (and even slower than we recently tested). Accordingly, Athlon 64 x2 3800+ will already seem something no less reactive than the famous pink panther (after all, even within an AM2, it is 53 points against 30 at Sempron 3000+), and the owner of such - a man taken to heaven in The flesh, similar to one of the biblical prophets :) But only that.

Despite the fact that in the summer of 2006, Athlon 64 x2 3800+ was a dream (and Athlon 64 FX-62 - an unrealized dream) of many users, today they can only look at their results with a grin or nostalgic sadness. Moreover, the devaluation process began in the same 2006 - the FX-62 "King of the Mountain" was only a quarter, after which he lost not even top, but only close to that Core 2 Duo (over the past years, the ratio, by the way, has not actually changed: According to the latest method, FX-62 scored 73 points, and the E6600, over which there were E6700 and X6800, all 77). Well, in the future, both companies left far ahead. We emphasize both.

Of course, the success of Intel looks elevated: Celeron G530T has a frequency of only 2 GHz and TDP 35 W (along with the graphics core). But after all, and the A4-3400 of the same old people overtakes in a similar extent. Yes, of course, it requires 2.7 GHz for this (that is, the specific productivity is somewhere on a third lower than that of Bridges), and the heat pump is already 65 W, but A4 has a rich inner world of graphic. Moreover, both called new products are not: announced last year and already inferior on the shelves faster "replacements", and AMD has a new architecture. Certain a lot of complaints at the start, however, at least everything cost without such a scandal, which was accompanied by the release of the first Phenom. And it is worth noting that even if it were not for the notorious "TLB-Bug" and the need to correct it, Phenom X4 could not count on high results. Just because even the best model in the line with the index 9950 (the company received far from immediately) worked only at a frequency of 2.6 GHz. The nearest analogue from the modern line is A6-3650 with the same frequency. And, by the way, the same capacitance of cache memory, despite L3 at the first Phenom - Total and there and there in 4 MIB. Let the A6 of the separate, but full-speed, and Phenom was only L2.

Well, as the performance of "old" and "new" correlates aMD coresWell showed today's testing - "extra" 100 MHz and an enlarged cache still did not interfere with the FX-62 almost 10% fall behind the A4-3400. Accordingly, a similar picture would be when comparing Phenom X4 9950 with A6-3650. The latter has a result of 110 points, i.e. the best that 9950 - 100 points could count on. Reference. Which are characteristic of the Athlon II x4 620 (by the way, with the same frequency of 2.6 GHz; and we have already observed something close) or ... Celeron G550 / G555 :) What is the case in this case talk about the younger representatives of the line, where else and low frequencies ? Suppose, without problems with the TLB 9500 would catch up with FX-62 (at one time, our testing has shown that the patch reduces the overall performance by about 21%) - what would this change? Yes, nothing!

In a very difficult situation in 2006, the AMD company was announced for the installation of the AM2 CPU. Processors for sockets 754 and 939 at that time themselves completely exhausted and could not show a sufficient level of speed. As a result, it was necessary to offer something new with higher speeds for a decent response to the eternal competitor represented by Intel Corporation.

How and why this computing platform appeared?

In 2006 in the market personal computers Sales started a new type of RAM, which was called DDR2. The connectors at that time for the installation of the CPU 754 and 939 of AMD were focused on the use of obsolete but the most common type of RAM - DDR.

As a result, the last socket was recycled and became called AM2. Processors for this connector received 30% increase in speed compared to predecessors. The main factor that has allowed so much to increase productivity has become an increased bandwidth of RAM.

Sockets up to am2. Subsequent processor connectors

As noted earlier, the predecessors for this processor connector can be considered the sockets 754 and 939. From the position of organizing the functioning of the RAM to the hero of this review, it was the second one who also had a 2-channel RAM controller. But also server socket 940 can be attributed to the predecessors of AM2. Processors in this case had an identical organization of the RAM subsystem and a similar number of contacts that was equal to 940 pieces.

In one or another, Am2 existed until 2009. At this time, instead of it and its updated version in AM2 + face, a new AM3 processor connector was released, which was the key innovation of which was the use of a new modification of RAM - DDR3. Physically, among others AM2 and AM3 compatible. Moreover, even the CPU AM2 + can be installed in AM3. But here the reverse use of the CPU is unacceptable due to the incompatibility of non-microprocessor controllers of RAM.

Models of central processors for am2

Socket AM2s were aimed at the following PC market segments:

SEPTRON ruler products made it possible to collect budget system blocks. Such CPUs had only one computing module and two-level cache. Technologically, these semiconductor solutions were carried out according to the norms of 90 nm (the CPU frequency range was limited by the values \u200b\u200bof 1.6-2.2 GHz) and 65 nm (1.9-2.3 GHz). These chips had a very and very democratic cost and an acceptable level of speed for solving office tasks, and it was precisely for these two reasons that could often be found in the budget segment of the PC.
All CPUs of Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 x2 belonged to the solutions of the middle segment. The level of speed in this case was ensured by increasing the size of the cache memory, higher clock frequencies and even the presence of 2 computing modules (processors with a console X2).

The most productive products of this platform were Phenom family chips. They could include 2, 3 or even 4 computing blocks. Also, the amount of cache memory was significantly increased.
Socket AM2 was aimed at creating an entry-level servers. The processors of the Opteron family could also be installed in it. They were available in 2 modifications: with 2 computing modules (based on the Athlon 64 x2 CPU and had a 2xx marking) and with 4 cores (in this case, Phenom chips were performed as a prototype, and such products were already designated 135x).

Chip sets for this platform

AMD AM2 processors could be used in conjunction with motherboards based on such chip sets from AMD:

The maximum level of functionality provided 790FX. It allowed to connect 4 video cards at once in 8x or 2 mode in 16x mode.
The niche of the mid-level products occupied 780E, 785E and 790x / GX. They allowed to install 2 graphic accelerators in mode 8x or 1 in 16x mode. Also, 790GX-based solutions were completed with the built-in Radeon 3100 video adapter.
Even below on the level of functionality, there were decisions based on 785G, 785G / V and 770. They allowed to use only 1 discrete graphic accelerator.

RAM and its controller

The setting of the newest DDR2 modules at that time was focused by AM2. Processors, as noted earlier, additional 30% of performance received at the expense of this important innovation. As in the case of 940, the RAM controller was integrated into the central processor. Such an engineering approach allows you to increase the speed with the RAM subsystem, but limits the number of supported CPUs of the types of RAM modules.

The appearance in the future of new modifications of the planks leads to the fact that the architecture of the RAM controller must be recycled. It is for this reason that it appeared between AM2 and AM3 + an intermediate solution of am2 +. The cardinal differences from the predecessor did not receive, and the difference was only that the support of the DDR2-800 RAM and DDR2-1066 modules was added. In the purest form, AM2 could fully work with the planks DDR2-400, DDR2-533 and DDR2-667. It is possible in such a PC to establish more speed modules of RAM, but in this case their speed automatically dropped to the level of DDR2-667, and there was no special gain from the use of more speed RAM.

The current situation with this platform

To date, completely outdated Socket AM2. Processors I. system fees For this platform, you can still find in a new state in warehouses. But here to consider this connector as the basis, even for assembling the most budget PC is not recommended: the difference in price with the most accessible processor solutions of the initial level of more recent sockets is insignificant, but the difference in terms of performance will be tangible.

Therefore, it is possible to use such components in the case when the PC on the AM2 base failed, and it is necessary to continue to restore it with minimal cost.

Let's summarize

The iconic in 2006 for the world of computer technology was the output of the connector to install the AM2 CPU. In this case, the processors received a very solid increase in speed and allowed to solve more complex tasks. But now products based on this platform are outdated, and it is not recommended to consider them as a basis for assembling a new system unit.

At the moment of solutions based on the AMD platform, not possessing the maximum performance, are of great interest for those who plan to collect a budget PC or a mid-level system. For $ 170-200, it is possible to get a completely "combal" kit - motherboard + dual-core Athlon 64 x2, despite the same money only for the purchase of the younger model Intel Core 2 Duo. In this test, we reviewed motherboards for the AM2 platform in price range $ 65-130 and tried to determine the most decent products available in our market. The review was attended by models built on modern chipsets without integrated graphics.

ASRock AliveSata2-Glan

Expansion slots

Chipset
Via K8T890 CF + VIA VT8237A

Sound codec Realtek Alc888.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Serial, 1 × Parallel, 4 × USB, 1 × RJ45

Verdict

Low cost; Not bad functionality

Necessity manual setting BIOS parameters; the impossibility of overclocking; Features of the placement of elements of the board

The most affordable test participant built on the VIA K8T890 chipset, a little less than $ 70 with a normal functionality. Something more demand for this money is difficult, and ASRock AliveSata2-GLAN is a rather modest product.

When setting up the BIOS default, the board understerates the HT bus multiplier, frequency system Tire And sets the minimum multiplier for the processor. These parameters must be customized manually, which will not be the easiest thing for the unprepared user. All of the time the layout of the connectors on the board leaves much to be desired. In particular, the ATX power connector is very inconvenient, and two of the four SATA connectors are located between the expansion slots. I did not like the latch on the PCI Express X16 connector - it is too small, and in order to remove the video card with a massive cooling system, you have to pretrately try.

If all the difficulties of installation and settings are overcome, the fee will delight the owner with good performance indicators. But it is rather the merit of the integrated memory controller in the AMD processors. As for the overclocking, the ASRock AliveSata2-Glan is not intended for it at all - with the slightest increase in the system tire frequency, the motherboard refuses to start.

ASRock Alivexfire-Esata2

Expansion slots 3 × PCI, 2 × PCI Express X16 (8 + 8), 1 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetAMD 480x Crossfire + SB600

Sound codec Realtek Alc888.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Serial, 1 × Parallel, 4 × USB, 1 × RJ45, 2 × ESATA

Verdict

Low price; The presence of the ESATA port; Ability to work two video cards in mode Crossfire.

Need to manually set the BIOS parameters

This motherboard is built on the basis aMD chipset 480x CrossFire (previously known as ATI Crossfire Xpress 1600). The highlight of the model is the support of two AMD / ATI video cards operating in CrossFire mode. This feature is unexpected for pay for $ 74. In addition, we note the presence of two ESATA ports on the rear panel allowing you to connect external devicesEquipped with this interface.

The disadvantages of ASRock Alivexfire-Esata2 include the same problem with automatic settings BIOS as ASRock AliveSata2-Glan, "many parameters should be installed manually. The ATX connector is inconvenient, now the additional 4-pin Molex connector is located next to it, which even more makes it difficult to connect the power cable. PCI Express X16 slot latch miniature in the case of two video adapters only aggravates the situation.

The video card mode switching mode (Single / CrossFire) is originally implemented. If one accelerator functions in the system, it must be installed in the bottom slot PCI Express X16, and a special key-card is inserted into the top inserted motherboard. Opponation opportunities are also practically absent, but overall functionality, and the performance is quite good.

ASUS M2N-E

Expansion slots 3 × PCI, 1 × PCI Express X16, 2 × PCI Express X1, 1 × PCI Express X4

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 570 ULTRA

Sound codec ADI 1988.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Serial, 4 × USB, 1 × RJ45, 1 × S / PDIF-OUT (coaxial)

Verdict

Good performance and opportunities bIOS settings; cooling system with thermal tubes; PCI Express X4 slot

Not maximum overclocking

The ASUS Arsenal always had motherboards, interesting and enthusiasts, and users with more modest requests. The ASUS M2N-E model is made on a black textolite, which indirectly indicates it to affiliate it at least to medium-level products. The NVIDIA NForce 570 Ultra chipset is also talking about this - the most powerful solution in this price range. A separate mention deserves a cooling system. It consists of two radiators: one on the chipset, the second - on the power meals of the processor, combined with a heat pipe. It is quite unusual to see such a solution on the device a little more expensive than $ 100.

When accepted, the board also manifests itself from a good side, although it does not demonstrate record indicators. Pretty wide opportunities BIOS settings that allow you to manage all necessary parameterswill satisfy almost any user, except with the exception of demanding enthusiasts. The maximum frequency of the tire at which the system remained absolutely stable, was 260 MHz. Very good, but not a record result.

In general, ASUS M2N-E is a high-quality product with good performance, sufficient acceleration potential and the ability to pretty thin setting BIOS.

ASUS M2V.

Expansion slots 4 × PCI, 1 × PCI Express X16, 1 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetVia K8T890 + VIA VT8237A

Sound codec Realtek alc660.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Parallel, 4 × USB, 1 × RJ45, 1 × S / PDIF-OUT (Coaxial), 1 × ESATA

Verdict

Low price; Four PCI slots; Small heat dissipation chipset

The ASUS M2V model will primarily pay attention to those users who are not ready to spend significant amounts on the motherboard. Made on the textolite of yellow color, visually it is not so effectively as ASUS M2N-E. The board is based on a chipset from VIA - K8T890, working in a bundle with the southern bridge VT8237A.

From the disadvantages, we note the location of the ATX connector and an additional 4-pin CPU power connector. They are located in the central part of the board slightly below the processor connector. On the one hand, it simplifies the wiring of the board, and on the other, it creates some inconvenience when connected, especially if non-standard large-sized coolers are used.

Otherwise, ASUS M2V leaves a positive impression. Many people have to do with a large number of PCI slots, which are already four here. The justified solution, since devices connected via PCI Express X1, are not very much, and often these slots are empty, while the lack on the free PCI board is quite a familiar phenomenon.

As for the overclocking potential, the device shows itself a strong middle snone - 240 MHz over the tire. A good result, especially if you consider the cost of this motherboard.

Biostar TFORCE 570 U

Product provided
Compass, Roma.

Expansion slots

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 570 ULTRA

Sound codec Realtek Alc888.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Serial, 6 × USB, 1 × RJ450

Verdict

Outstanding acceleration indicators; Buttons RESET / POWERon motherboard

Uncomfortable location of the ATX connector

The Biostar TForce 570U motherboard initially attracted attention to its catchy memorable design - dark blue textolitol, interface connectors and a processor socket frame have a bright green and orange color. And the fact that the NVIDIA NForce 570 Ultra chipset is used, it was possible to assume to see the name of the board.

This model turned out to be the only fee in our testing, on which the additional POWER and RESET buttons are located, which will be very useful when searching for "Male Megahertz". Everything else, the motherboard is equipped with an 8-pin Power Connector ATX 12V, which will ensure proper power to operate the top dual-core AMD ATHLON 64 FX processors. From pleasant smallest things, we note that the chokes of the subsystem of nutrition are filled with epoxy resin, and this eliminates the possibility of high-frequency piscus during operation.

However, the most impression the motherboard produced in the process of determining overclocking potential - the maximum frequency of the system tire was 330 MHz, which is the highest result among the test participants. All this in a complex with a good layout of the board, a memorable design and reasonable price allowed Biostar TForce 570U to get a sign.

Gigabyte Ga-M55S-S3

Product provided
Asbis, K-Trade

Expansion slots 2 × PCI, 1 × PCI Express X16, 4 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 550.

Sound codec Realtek alc883.

Connectors on the back panel

Verdict

Good functionality; Not bad overclocking

Not the most convenient BIOS; a little overpriced price; only two PCI slots

This motherboard is built on a somewhat simplified compared to the NVIDIA NForce 550 chipset compared to the older models. This affected the price that allows it to be attributed to the category of inexpensive solutions. The design is unified and is also used in more functional fees. Therefore, the PCB of this product has free areas for non-wishing elements.

Of the pros, it is worth noting a very informative BIOS, however, it is somewhat inconvenient and quickly finding the necessary function will initially be quite difficult. It is gratifying that the chokes of the nutrition system are filled with epoxy resin, this eliminates the appearance of high-frequency pisc. A separate mention deserves the number of all kinds of interface connectors on the back panel, such a variety will see not on each top board, not to mention more accessible solutions.

As for the overclocking, here Gigabyte Ga-M55S-S3 shows itself pretty good. The possibilities of increasing the frequency of the system tire to 250 MHz will be enough for most users to overclock the processors. If the maximum performance is needed, it is better to pay attention to other participants in this testing.

Gigabyte Ga-M57SLI-S4

Expansion slots 2 × PCI, 2 × PCI Express X16 (8 + 8), 3 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 570 SLI

Sound codec Realtek alc883.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Parallel, 1 × Serial, 4 × USB, 1 × RJ45, 1 × IEEE 1394, 2 × S / PDIF-OUT

Verdict

Excellent functionality; Good price / performance ratio

Not the most convenient BIOS; placement of expansion slots; only two PCI connector

The GA-M57SLI-S4 device is not very different from the previous model - the same design of the printed circuit board, a small radiator on the chipset, the layout of the connectors on the rear panel. The only visual difference is the presence of a second PCI Express X16 slot and pairs of additional SATA connectors. The functionality extension is due to the fact that the NVIDIA NForce 570 SLI is used in this model, which provides the operation of two video cards in SLI mode.

Immediately it is worth noting: the chipset heats up quite strongly, and a small aluminum radiator for its full cooling may not be enough, especially for effective overclocking.

Some complaints are on the placement of expansion slots. In the case of using two video cards with a massive cooling system, one of the PCI slots will be blocked, and there are only two of them. Yes, and the top slot PCI Express X1 is problematic to be necessary to use, since immediately behind it is a high capacitor, which can interfere with installing the extension fee.

As for overclocking, Gigabyte Ga-M57SLI-S4 repeats the results of the previous model, allowing you to increase the tire frequency to 250 MHz. It is possible that the problem of further increasing it is in insufficient cooling of the chipset, so that its replacement is strongly recommended.

Foxconn N570SM2AA-8EKRS2H

Foxconn WinFast N570sm2aa-8EKRS2H

Expansion slots 2 × PCI, 2 × PCI Express X16, 3 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 570 SLI

Sound codec Realtek alc882h

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Parallel, 1 × Serial, 4 × USB, 2 × RJ45, 2 × S / PDIF-OUT, 1 × ESATA

Verdict

Low price for boards with chipset NForce 570 SLI; radiator on power elements; Esata connector

Low overclocking; Not the most successful layout of the elements; noisy fan; Two PCI slots

Foxconn motherboards under the WinFast brand are already familiar to many users in our country. As a rule, they combine a low price with decent functionality and moderate levels of overclocking potential. To a large extent, this is true for WinFast N570sm2aa-8EKRS2H. And by functionality, it is not inferior to top devices - readiness for the operation of graphic adapters in SLI mode, two gigabit network adapter, FireWire controller, ESATA port, digital audio outputs. Note and the radiator on the power elements of the processor power system.

With all the advantages of this device, the PCI Express X16 slots are somewhat confused, which are too close to each other, which makes it almost impossible to use two video cards with massive cooling systems. Connoisseurs of silence also do not like a very noisy fan on the chipset, and the question of its replacement is only a matter of time. The acceleration indicators are not impressive - only 240 MHz over the tire. However, not for each possibility of overclocking is a prerequisite for the purchase. In general, the Foxconn N570SM2AA-8EKRS2H fee is not bad balanced and will definitely interest not very demanding users.

MSI K9A Platinum

Expansion slots 2 × PCI, 2 × PCI Express X16 (8 + 8), 2 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetAMD Crossfire. 580x + SB600.

Sound codec Realtek alc883.

Connectors on the back panel

Verdict

Moderate price; CROSSFIRE mode; Radiators on strength elements

Construction of clamps on PCI Express X16 slots; only two PCI ports

Products from the company MSI Platinum series attract attention to non-standard design and technical solutions. The MSI K9A Platinum model with black textolite and white expansion slots looks very elegant. This is the only fee in the test, built on the basis of the AMD CrossFire 580x chipset. Due to its functionality, two video cards in CROSSFIRE mode can be used. However, if the graphics adapter in the lower slot PCI Express X16 has a massive cooling system, it will overlap one of two PCI connectors. On the rear panel full set Required interface ports, including two gigabit Ethernet, which never hurts. Competent wiring of all items allows not to think about the priority of connection and installation. We note this useful trifle as radiators on the power elements of the processor power stabilizer.

To the disadvantages, we will draw a very simplified and pretty harvester design of the locks on the PCI Express X16 slots, which, with frequent removal of video cards, simply can get out of standing. Opportunities for overclocking at MSI K9A Platinum are low, but on functionality this fee is one of the best.

MSI K9N NEO-F

Expansion slots 3 × PCI, 1 × PCI Express X16, 2 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 550.

Sound codec Realtek alc883.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Parallel, 1 × Serial, 4 × USB, 1 × RJ45

Verdict

Low price; Radiator on strength elements

Placing the ATX power connector; Shipping latch on the PCI Express X16 slot; Weak overclocking

MSI motherboard, built on the basis of the NVIDIA NForce 550 chipset, has a rather attractive price. However, its decline did not pass painlessly - the functionality was also noticeably injured. Yes, and the possibilities of overclocking in this model are minimal - just up to 230 MHz over the bus, which will be clearly not enough to overclock modern processors.

The minuses will also carry an uncomfortable location of the ATX connector, which will create some problems when connecting the power cable. Plus, as well as the rest of the considered MSI models, this fee has a very harvested latch of the PCI Express X16 connector, the fixing graphics adapter is not very reliable.

From pleasant features, we note the presence of radiators on the power elements of the processor power subsystem, which is rather rare for budget boards.

In general, the functionality of the MSI K9N NEO-F model is minimally sufficient, and for users who need only stable operation in normal mode and there is no need for advanced features, this is a good option. Boards S. best characteristics And the means for fine tuning the system are usually more expensive.

MSI K9N SLI Platinum

Expansion slots 3 × PCI, 2 × PCI Express X16 (8 + 8), 2 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 570 SLI

Sound codec Realtek alc883.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Parallel, 1 × Serial, 4 × USB, 2 × RJ45, 1 × IEEE 1394, 2 × S / PDIF-OUT

Verdict

Highly good opportunities overclocking; excellent functionality; Radiator on power stabilizer power elements

Insufficient efficiency of the chipset cooling system; PCI Express X16

The most expensive motherboard among the participants of this test, built on the basis of the NVIDIA NForce 570 SLI chipset. MSI K9N SLI Platinum design fully confirms her belonging to the highest class. The combination of black textolite and white expansion slots gives the device a specific charm. Only connectors for memory and SATA devices fall out of the overall color concept. The chipset supports the operation of video cards in SLI mode, so the presence of two PCI Express X16 slots is quite expected.

With regard to the layout of the motherboard, there are practically no complaints with the exception that when using a pair of accelerators, one of the PCI slots will be blocked. In addition, the radiator installed on the chipset may not be enough to efficiently cool the NVIDIA NFORCE 570 SLI. On the back panel maximum amount Interface connectors, so additional plugs with external connectors are unlikely to be needed.

As for the overclocking, MSI K9N SLI Platinum has shown itself very well, conquer the frontier of 280 MHz, is the second result in testing. These features are quite enough to overclock any modern processor from AMD. As a result, the board rightly deserves a sign "Editor's choice: the best quality."

MSI K9N ULTRA-2F

Expansion slots 3 × PCI, 1 × PCI Express X16, 3 × PCI Express X1

ChipsetNVIDIA NFORCE 570 ULTRA

Sound codec Realtek alc883.

Connectors on the back panel
PS / 2, 1 × Parallel, 1 × Serial, 4 × USB, 2 × RJ45, 2 × S / PDIF-OUT

Verdict

Moderate price; good potential for overclocking

Placing the processor power connector; PCI Express X16 hitch

By design, the MSI K9N Ultra-2F model is rather similar to the previous board. The differences are in color of the textolite, the absence of the second slot PCI Express X16, the radiator on the power elements and the non-painted FireWire controller chip. Simplification data will save the user to save $ 40, while maintaining most of the possibilities of MSI K9N SLI Platinum. With regard to acceleration, the MSI K9N Ultra-2F model also demonstrates very good results and is able to work stably with the system bus frequency to 260 MHz. Pleasant features - saturated with connectors rear panel and two gigabit network adapters.

From the disadvantages, we note the inconvenient location of the 4-pin power connector - almost in the center of the board, which can potentially create some problems when assembling the computer. In addition, the design of the PCI Express X16 latch, as in the case of previous models, leaves much to be desired.

This is the most affordable product product based on the NVIDIA NForce 570 Ultra chipset. If you are sure that two video cards running in SLI mode, even in a remote run will not be useful for you, then acquiring this feeYou will not launch extra money for those functions that will not be used.

conclusions

The integrated memory controller in AMD processors reduces the speed of system logic sets. In this case, the difference in the performance of motherboards, regardless of the chipset used, with other things being equal, is practically leveled. As testing in PCMark05 showed, it often does not exceed 3-5% (only the results of Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4 were enjoyable exceptions). Therefore, during the selection of the AM2 platform for its PC, it is most likely to be paid to the functionality of the board, the presence of controllers that will be in demand, well, of course, the possibility of overclocking, if this question is relevant for you.

As for the participants of our testing, "Editor's Choice: Best Purchase" For the excellent combination of price and productivity, memorable design and record level of overclocking received fees Biostar TFORCE 570U.. It is ideal for those who want to get maximum productivity For your money, even with some reduction of opportunities.

Owner of a sign "Editor's Choice: Best Quality"stated MSI K9N SLI Platinum. This award is awarded to it for excellent functionality and excellent overclocking level. The fee will definitely be a choice of those who want everything immediately, despite the price.

Separate attention deserves MSI K9a Platinum, which will allow you to use two video cards in mode Crossfire., It is similar to the K9N functionality, it is somewhat cheaper, but demonstrates a smaller overclocking potential. If the latter is not a determining factor, the excellent choice will also be very functional Gigabyte Ga-M57SLI-S4. For those who prefer VIA chipsets, we recommend to look at ASUS M2V, which has a very attractive price and good stability.

Over the past few years, NVIDIA has confidently held the leading positions in the chipsets market, with ease of ahead of not only his eternal opponent, ATI, but also other manufacturers of chipsets for aMD Platforms. Take, for example, the first generation of PCI EXPRESS support for AMD platforms. ATI and NVIDIA have chosen to release their chipsets one and the same period, the end of 2004, but NVIDIA NForce4 was adopted as the High-end chipset, while ATI Xpress 200 preferred the majority of OEM manufacturers for the simple reason that it was the only one on The moment chipset on the market with PCI Express support and embedded graphics. However, it was worth NVIDIA to release his chipset with embedded graphics, the sales volumes of ATI Xpress 200 declined sharply. NForce4 dominance continued all 2005 and was preserved in early 2006.

A few months ago, ATI made a real sensation, releaseing CrossFire Xpress 3200. The new ATI chipset did not simply provide high performance, but also possessed excellent overclocking capabilities and differed a smaller level of power dissipated compared to the latest NFORCE. From the part it was possible to think that ATI specially focused her chipset on enthusiasts, for whom the possibilities of overclocking and fine adjustment are fundamentally important characteristics components. Of course, Xpress 3200 lost the last sentences NVIDIA in its functional featuresBut this did not immediately scared the manufacturers of motherboards (such as, for example, ASUS) who tried to expand them by designing their motherboards for this chipset. Thus, CrossFire Xpress 3200 became essentially the first ATI chipset of the High-End class, with which the company could safely challenge any of the latest NVIDIA solutions.

A recent AM2 output automatically created a new "battle field" for two principal rivals.

In Ati, they decided that "not looking for goodness" and decided to rely on the proven Xpress 3200. Nvidia also offered a completely new solution.

We will start our review with a more familiar ATI chipset.