Athlon II X2 220 AM3 Propus X4 cores...65W or 95W?

[cbn]

I'm confused, how can an Athlon II unlock to anything Phenom II-ish? The latter has L3 cache, the former doesn't.

Some of the Athlon II x2 220 processors used the Deneb die rather than the Regor die.

 

[SPBHM]

also AMD released propus (no l3) Phenom II X4s, like the 840..

and the MB recognizes some unlocked athlons as "phenom" even without the l3 being enabled (or physically there)

 

[cbn]

also AMD released propus (no l3) Phenom II X4s, like the 840..

and the MB recognizes some unlocked athlons as "phenom" even without the l3 being enabled (or physically there)

There were also some Phenom II x2 (like the 511) that didn't have L3 cache. These were based on the Regor die rather than Propus with two cores disabled.

 

[waltchan]

Walt, for your Athlon II x2 220 that unlocked to Phenom II x4....what stepping did it have?

Either a "AC" (Deneb) or "AD" (Propus) on top. More than 95% sold and listed on eBay are "AE" (Regor), with only two cores max and no other cores available. For the 5%, there are more Propus cores by 3 times the amount than Deneb.

Before AM3 socket, there used to be a AM2+ socket, Athlon 5000+ 2.2 GHz, that was based on the Deneb core, which can be unlocked to Phenom x4 FX-5000 quad-core with 6MB L3 cache with 75% success rate. It was an extremely popular deal for $37 back then in 2010.

http://slickdeals.net/f/1949286-amd-athlon-x2-5000-socket-am2-dual-core-processor-oem?v=1

I have one that can unlock to Phenom FX-5000, but it only takes DDR2 RAM max.

Back to AM3, try Athlon 210e 45w on eBay. Have some success, about 50% chance. Over 90% made were based on "AD" Propus quad-cores, but they can only be overclocked up to 3.10 GHz max on stock voltage (a little slow) because of the 45W TDP.

 

[waltchan]

3.5 Ghz for four cores is pretty good.

Look how a Phenom II x 4 965 (3.4 Ghz) did in 2013 Tom's hardware gaming comparison test:

I would much rather take a more powerful dual-core overclockable to 3.90 GHz with two cores missing due to faster single-thread. Besides, $8.99 for this 95W dual-core is the fastest and cheapest I've found so far. I rarely use the two additional quad-cores for basic computing.

 

[cbn]

Back to AM3, try Athlon 210e 45w on eBay. Have some success, about 50% chance. Over 90% made were based on "AD" Propus quad-cores, but they can only be overclocked up to 3.10 GHz max on stock voltage (a little slow) because of the 45W TDP.

Regarding Athlon II x 2 210e, I didn't see that one listed in the Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 CPU support list:

http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=5195

Are you using another board for that CPU?

 

[Blitzvogel]

I though the Athlon II dual cores were native, not binned.........

Off topic here, beyond SIMD/FPU improvements and ISA compatibility, what all did the BD family do much better than Stars from a core versus module basis? The higher clocks were IIRC necessary to make up for cache latencies, and it seems that having the small integer cores didn't bode well for integer performance-bound software made for one or two threads only. It hardly ever seems like software ever treats the module as one big core when necessary, much like the split FPU design, which I thought was part of the point of BD?

Stars has had commendable longevity in particular L3 equipped Phenom II models. I only retired my Phenom II x4/ Radeon 5850 system back in December, and if I hadn't ran into issues with RAM stick compatibility (leaving me stuck at 4 GB), I might've skipped building a new system for even longer. Newer titles like MGS5, Shadows of Mordor and Titanfall would run fine until the inevitable crash due to limited system RAM. Zen really seems to be an incredibly ironic and humbling throw back to Stars but with true 256 bit AVX and the communicative improvements BD had for feeding it's integer cores.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I though the Athlon II dual cores were native, not binned.

AMD did a lot of weird downbinning with their cores. Including, evidently, selling quad-core dice as dual-core CPUs, that in specific cases could be "unlocked" back into quad-cores. Pretty neat and crazy stuff.

My experience has been with unlocking a triple-core CPU into a quad-core, but that's about it.

A friend of mine unlocked a 4-core (Zosma? The cut-down Thuban dies), into a 5-core. One of the cores was unstable, that's why he didn't get 6 cores.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Cores/index.html

 

[Blitzvogel]

Had I known that Athlon IIs were binned, I would've tried to unlock the other cores on the one I had as an interim before purchasing my Phenom II x4. I'll admit though, I was pretty happy with the 2 GB DDR3, Athlon II x2 and Radeon 4670 1 GB (amazing overclocker!) I had before upgrading. It was simple, cheap, and well performing, combined with Windows XP. Ran Crysis with high settings at 1440 x 900 very well.

It was only my second computer build. Those were some really fun times

 

[mikeymikec]

Some of the Athlon II x2 220 processors used the Deneb die rather than the Regor die.

So did it have the Deneb's L3 cache enabled already or was that somehow disabled then somehow re-enabled by the core unlocking feature?

also AMD released propus (no l3) Phenom II X4s, like the 840..

and the MB recognizes some unlocked athlons as "phenom" even without the l3 being enabled (or physically there)

So CPUs with faulty L3 I guess, then the L3 gets disabled by AMD and sold as an Athlon II...?

 

[waltchan]

Regarding Athlon II x 2 210e, I didn't see that one listed in the Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 CPU support list:

http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=5195

Are you using another board for that CPU?

It fully supports it. Already installed three 210e, and only one can unlock to quad-core. The two that didn't unlock I already sold. The CPU list by Gigabyte is not always complete.

 

[waltchan]

My experience has been with unlocking a triple-core CPU into a quad-core, but that's about it.

The triple-core Athlons are the most-common available if you want to unlock one to quad-core. It's only $10 more than Athlon dual-core. Not a big deal. Depreciation already factored in 90% by now these days.

Due to low prices for all, a triple-core Athlon 425 or 435 makes a great starter on your quad-core unlock bet. The lowest price quad-core is Athlon 620 priced at $32 starting.

 

[waltchan]

Today, I tried disabling one-core to make it run as single-core only, and to my big surprise, it can run up to 4.20 GHz max easily with 1599MHz RAM speed using bus-overclock. I tried over 4.00 GHz with two cores opened, but they failed stability each time and ends up at 3.90 GHz max.

Which one I'm better off? 3.90 GHz dual-core with 1487MHz RAM or 4.20 GHz single-core with 1599MHz RAM?

 

[waltchan]

Let's see, if I decide to keep the single-core open only, my estimated single thread rating is 1420, and total benchmark score is 1200, which exceeds the Celeron G470 that I have.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Today, I tried disabling one-core to make it run as single-core only, and to my big surprise, it can run up to 4.20 GHz max easily with 1599MHz RAM speed using bus-overclock. I tried over 4.00 GHz with two cores opened, but they failed stability each time and ends up at 3.90 GHz max.

Which one I'm better off? 3.90 GHz dual-core with 1487MHz RAM or 4.20 GHz single-core with 1599MHz RAM?

Dual. The CPU will be so busy wasting time switching programs in the stack during normal use, the extra clock won't matter and you'll be out a whole processing core.

 

[waltchan]

This CPU I have indeed had some defects in manufacturing on Core 1, 2, and 3. Core 0 turns out to run the strongest and 100% defect-free, while core 1 is 25% defective a little due to it unable to go past 3.90 GHz at 95W TDP rating. Core 2 and 3 (two additional disabled cores) won't unlock at all due to defects in manufacturing. So AMD sold it as Athlon X2 220 instead of X4 630.

For comparison, I used to own a Athlon X4 650 before (but sold it for $100 due to value), and since all 4 cores were 100% defect-free from factory, I was able to get up to 4.05 GHz on all 4-cores at 1.40V stock rating. Disabled two cores allowed it go 4.15 GHz, and disabled three cores allowed it go 4.30 GHz, if I still remember.

 

[waltchan]

One eBay buyer purchased a Athlon 220 based on Deneb quad-core (AC) with two cores disabled, but I assume it didn't work because he listed it back on eBay fast. :'(

http://www.ebay.com/itm/321773706590

Now for sale: http://www.ebay.com/itm/131538903527

So I replied to him to try enabling three cores only with 6MB L3 cache. Many times, the forth-core (core 3) is the non-working one.

P.S.: I was the second-highest winning bidder from the original auction. Glad he outbid me. Unlocking is NOT always guaranteed, and anyone should always bid cautiously, like I did.

 

[waltchan]

One eBay buyer purchased a Athlon 220 based on Deneb quad-core (AC) with two cores disabled, but I assume it didn't work because he listed it back on eBay fast. :'(

http://www.ebay.com/itm/321773706590

Now for sale: http://www.ebay.com/itm/131538903527

So I replied to him to try enabling three cores only with 6MB L3 cache. Many times, the forth-core (core 3) is the non-working one.

P.S.: I was the second-highest winning bidder from the original auction. Glad he outbid me. Unlocking is NOT always guaranteed, and anyone should always bid cautiously, like I did.

Update...

I successfully purchased this for $9 shipped using best-offer option, and I got accepted to my biggest surprise. Seller replied back to me stating his board doesn't have core-unlocking option and wanted to go with the more-expensive $100 FX (really???, he's missing out on this great deal). Will let you guys know the results.

 

[waltchan]

Now $39.99 AR for Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 (6.0), brand new, one of the lowest-prices I've seen. Pair this one up with Sempron 145 CPU for $7 shipped and unlock it to dual-core, up to 3.36GHz max.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128565

 

[cbn]

Now $39.99 AR for Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 (6.0), brand new, one of the lowest-prices I've seen. Pair this one up with Sempron 145 CPU for $7 shipped and unlock it to dual-core, up to 3.36GHz max.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128565

For anyone wondering about the iGPU on that board, here is one comment from the Newegg reviews (dated 5/12/2015) I found particularly useful:

Cons: The onboard video is not usable with Windows Media Center. Gigabyte states on their product page that this boars supports HDCP, and maybe it does under some circumstances... However I ran into some problems here.
I got this board to replace the dead motherboard in my HTPC. Under Windows 7, Media Center wouldn't allow playback of premium channels (DRM) and under Windows 8 (I did a fresh install) I couldn't even get the video to qualify during media center setup. The onboard video (AMD Radeon HD 3000) is so ancient that AMD ended support for this chip two years ago, and to get the driver working under Windows 8.1 I had to force it to install in Device Manager. I ended up disabling the onboard video and spending another $30 for a cheap 1-slot nVida card with passive cooling just so I could get my HTPC functional again.

Other Thoughts: If you just want a cheap system to get some extra life out of some old memory or CPU this will be fine. Works just fine with Linux and Windows 7, and with a force install of the video driver under Window 8.1 it's even OK for basic stuff like web browsing or office productivity, but if you want to do any kind of video playback or use as an HTPC, you'll need to find a decent low-profile 1-slot video card and just disable the onboard video.

So for office work and web-browsing the iGPU is fine. With enough CPU*, video playback on You tube shouldn't be a problem. But apparently Windows Media center has DRM that requires certain iGPU features.

*My E6550 Core 2 duo (with GMA 3100, which lacks h.264 decode) is capable of playing 1080p You tube. So it shouldn't take much in the way of AM3/AM3+ CPU to handle 1080p You tube.

 

[cbn]

Back to AM3, try Athlon 210e 45w on eBay. Have some success, about 50% chance. Over 90% made were based on "AD" Propus quad-cores, but they can only be overclocked up to 3.10 GHz max on stock voltage (a little slow) because of the 45W TDP.

Any other dual cores based on Propus?

 

[waltchan]

Any other dual cores based on Propus?

For dual-core, only Athlon X2 210e, 215, and 220. That's all. For triple-core or better, all of them are Propus quad-cores with one core disabled.

 

[waltchan]

For anyone wondering about the iGPU on that board, here is one comment from the Newegg reviews (dated 5/12/2015) I found particularly useful:




So for office work and web-browsing the iGPU is fine. With enough CPU*, video playback on You tube shouldn't be a problem. But apparently Windows Media center has DRM that requires certain iGPU features.

*My E6550 Core 2 duo (with GMA 3100, which lacks h.264 decode) is capable of playing 1080p You tube. So it shouldn't take much in the way of AM3/AM3+ CPU to handle 1080p You tube.

Radeon HD3000 only supports up to Windows 7 max. For Windows 8 and 10 installation, installation of NET Framework 3.5 is required, plus set compatibility mode to Windows 7 in administrator menu.

 

[sm625]

what all did the BD family do much better than Stars from a core versus module basis?

Nothing. If AMD had simply stayed with Stars, normal incremental improvements would have gotten them something faster and more efficient than Steamroller, with only half the money invested. AMD should have scrapped bulldozer before it ever came to market. I truly do not understand what they were thinking releasing a chip in 2011 with a 95 watt TDP and had a single thread rating of 1100. That monstrocity should have been aborted immediately.

 

[DrMrLordX]

For dual-core, only Athlon X2 210e, 215, and 220. That's all. For triple-core or better, all of them are Propus quad-cores with one core disabled.

Note that some of those are Deneb in disguise. My x2 220 is a Deneb (it unlocked 6 MB L3 cache and it also had four cores, though only 3 could be made stable). If you find a 220 that is a CACDC you're in there.

Some of the 220s are not Propus or Deneb at all, but are native dual-cores. Then there are some others that unlock to full Propus.

I'm guessing that if you unlock a CACDC 220 you're probably going to get a TDP of ~125-140W, while the Propus unlocks will produce an effective TDP of 95W-125W. Depending on clockspeed.

Nothing. If AMD had simply stayed with Stars, normal incremental improvements would have gotten them something faster and more efficient than Steamroller, with only half the money invested. AMD should have scrapped bulldozer before it ever came to market. I truly do not understand what they were thinking releasing a chip in 2011 with a 95 watt TDP and had a single thread rating of 1100. That monstrocity should have been aborted immediately.

It's impossible to know what they could or could not have accomplished by continued updates to Stars. I can tell you that my Kaveri is far-and-away faster than a Stars chip whenever AVX is involved. x87 and SSE2 build targets are not good for Construction cores. SSE3/4 seems kind of a wash.