Comparing AMD FM1 and FM2 sockets. AMD processors for FM1 platform Is fm2 suitable

A socket, as you know, is a connector on the motherboard for installing a central processor. Sockets differ in form factor, number of contacts and type of fastening. The use of sockets, in principle, is intended to facilitate system upgrades by simply changing the processor. However, the problem is that the release of almost every new processor from AMD or Intel is associated with a transition to a new platform, that is, with the appearance of a new socket.

This is clearly seen, in particular, in the example of the latest FM1 and FM2 sockets, designed to connect powerful AMD hybrid processors. The FM1 platform was developed for Llano processors, which were released not so long ago - in mid-2011. However, when developing the new Komodo and Trinity family of processors, AMD decided to abandon the use of the FM1 socket in favor of the new FM2 platform. In this short article we will try to figure out what this threatens users with and whether there are significant design differences between the FM1 and FM2 sockets.

Platforms FM1 and FM2

Socket FM1 is a processor socket with 905 pins. It was developed specifically for hybrid APU processors from AMD based on the Fusion architecture. We are talking, first of all, about Liano hybrid processors, which, due to the presence of an integrated graphics core, required not only a new design. AMD's Liano processors came in dual- and quad-core variants with Direct X 11 GPU support and random access memory type DDR3 1600. All motherboards released with Socket FM1 for installing Liano processors adopted the UEFI system instead of the traditional BIOS. In the desktop segment, Liano processors and, accordingly, the FM1 platform debuted on June 30, 2011.

It seemed that the next generation of AMD hybrid processors would also be Socket FM1. However, the appearance of AMD Llano processors on the market was assessed ambiguously by computer enthusiasts and overclocking enthusiasts, for whom the new product was actually designed. Although the powerful integrated graphics core provided a good level of performance comparable to the performance of junior discrete video cards, the Liano processors did not bring the expected increase in frequency potential. And while AMD Llano solutions were quite competitive in the mobile segment, their popularity in desktop systems turned out to be low.

AMD has decided to rely on a new generation of Trinity hybrid processors with more powerful graphics and computing cores. Creating a more powerful processor for desktop systems required abandoning the existing FM1 platform. This is how socket FM2 appeared, which is structurally different from FM1 in a slightly different arrangement of contacts.

AMD's new Trinity processors are based on an improved Piledriver architecture and feature powerful integrated graphics. They have a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller that supports operation in modes up to DDR3 1866. One of the main differences between Trinity chips and their predecessor Liano processors is higher clock speeds. If Liano processors managed to get close to the 3 GHz mark, then older Trinity models can already be overclocked to 3.8 GHz - 4.2 GHz.

Despite the fact that older Trinity models have slightly fewer shader units than Llano, this is more than compensated for by the use of VLIW4 multiprocessor units, acceleration of the tessellation processing unit and a higher clock frequency. The integrated Trinity graphics core has full support for DirectX 11 with ShaderModel 5.0, OpenCL 1.1 and DirectCompute 11. Solutions on the FM1 socket, by the way, did not provide the ability to use two graphics adapters in the system at once. The new FM2 platform with Trinity processors is aimed at a wide range of users who are interested in building fairly powerful multimedia desktop PCs.

Differences and compatibility of sockets FM1 and FM2

In general, the FM2 socket is a logical continuation of the FM1 platform, so the differences between the two connectors were not too significant. Upon careful examination, one can be convinced that even appearance The FM2 socket has not undergone radical changes compared to the previous platform. However, these changes still exist. Although the pin layout of both sockets looks similar, the FM2 is missing one of the pins in the central part. Thus, if the FM1 processor socket had 905 contacts, the new platform has only 904.

In addition, the so-called “keys”, that is, areas without contacts, for Llano and Trinity processors are located in different places substrates. Unfortunately, a different location of the “keys” will not even allow installing the AMDTrinity processor into the old FM1 socket. Some other subtle changes to the FM2 socket are related to power delivery.

AMD representatives have for a long time given rather evasive answers to the question of whether the FM1 and FM2 platforms will ultimately be compatible. This was probably done so as not to indirectly reduce the demand for processors with socket FM1. But today it is already known that the new AMD hybrid processors have neither direct nor backward compatibility with the FM1 platform.

This means that desktop users with AMD Liano processors will need to purchase motherboards that support socket FM2 to upgrade to the latest Trinity processors. This incompatibility is understandable, because the new AMD processors are based on a completely different architecture, which required a transition to different power subsystems. This circumstance forced AMD to switch to the new Socket FM2 platform. However, owners of desktop PCs with the FM1 platform were unlikely to be satisfied with this decision.

Prospects for sockets FM1 and FM2

AMD has earned user recognition not only for its powerful and cost-effective solutions, but also because it has always strived to maintain one design for several generations of its processors. This provided users with the ability to easily and quickly upgrade their PC by purchasing and installing a new processor. Thus, the policy of frequent socket changes has never been a hallmark of AMD. That is why the rejection of the FM1 platform actually gave rise to a lot of discontent among a serious part of AMD product supporters.

With the emergence of the new FM2 platform, the company's management de facto recognized Llano hybrid processors and accompanying motherboards with the FM1 socket as a “dead-end” solution. It is clear that the previous generation platform with the lack of upgrade options is unlikely to have any success among users. It can be assumed that the FM1 socket, which was released seemingly not so long ago, will have a short life on the market.

With the FM2 platform, as AMD assures us, everything will be different. This processor socket will not become “single serial”, as happened with FM1, but will be aimed at supporting several future generations of AMD processors. However, given the not-so-pleasant history with the release of first-generation hybrid processors, potential consumers may have concerns and questions for AMD about whether the FM2 platform is really here for the long haul. Perhaps in the near future, in connection with the development of new, more productive solutions, the company will again have to switch to a completely different processor socket.

Be that as it may, at present, a number of manufacturers have already announced the release of motherboards with the FM2 socket for new AMD processors. This is, for example, the flagship model GA-F2A85X-UP4 from Gigabyte and the Hi-Fi A85W board from Biostar. Everything suggests that the choice of motherboards with FM2 connector will become quite wide in the near future.

Hi all. In this article you can fully familiarize yourself with the main characteristics of FM2 and FM2+ processors. The list includes all processors: From A4 series to A10 series. In the list of all FM2/FM2+ socket processors, the processors are arranged by decreasing performance (at least I tried to arrange them that way): from the most powerful to the weakest. In the processor frequency column, you can see the value in brackets - this is the processor turbo frequency (or frequency in Boost mode). Prices for processors were taken from the cheapest online stores and are constantly updated. Therefore, you don’t have to worry about the relevance of prices for FM2+/FM2 processors.


FM2+ processors								Processor name	Price	Cores	Frequency	Video card	Cache memory	Power	Technical process	A10-7890K	RUR 4,274	4	4.1(4.3) GHz	R7(866 MHz)	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	Athlon x4 880K	RUB 5,845	4	4(4.2) GHz	No	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	A10-7870K	RUB 3,785	4	3.9(4.1) GHz	R7(1100 MHz)	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	Athlon x4 870K	RUB 3,156	4	3.9(4.1) GHz	No	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	A10-7850K	RUR 3,486	4	3.7(4) GHz	R7(757 MHz)	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	Athlon x4 860K	RUB 1,894	4	3.7(4) GHz	No	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	A10-8750/A10 PRO-8750B	RUB 2,815	4	3.6(4) GHz	R7(757 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A10-7860K/A10 PRO-7850B	RUB 3,550	4	3.6(4) GHz	R7(757 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	FX-770K	?	4	3.5(3.9) GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A10-7800/A10 PRO-7800B	RUB 2,761	4	3.5(3.9) GHz	R7(720 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A8-7680	?	4	3.5(3.8) GHz	R7(1029 MHz)	2 MB	45 W	28 nm	Athlon x4 845	RUB 2,827	4	3.5(3.8) GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A10-7700K	RUR 3,017	4	3.4(3.8) GHz	R7(720 MHz)	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	A8-8650/A8 PRO-8650B	RUB 1,975	4	3.2(3.8) GHz	R7(757 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	Athlon x4 840	RUB 1,577	4	3.1(3.8) GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A8-7690K	?	4	3.7 GHz	R7(757 MHz)	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	A8-7670K	RUR 4,491	4	3.6(3.9) GHz	R7(758 MHz)	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	A8-7650K	RUR 3,525	4	3.3(3.8) GHz	R7(757 MHz)	4 MB	95 W	28 nm	Athlon x4 850	RUB 1,603	4	3.2 GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A8-7600/A8 PRO-7600B	RUR 3,086	4	3.1(3.8) GHz	R7(757 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	Athlon x4 835	RUB 2,521	4	3.1 GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	Athlon X4 830	?	4	3(3.4) GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A8-7500	?	4	3 GHz	R7	4 MB	65 W	28 nm	A6-7470K	?	2	3.7(4) GHz	R5(800 MHz)	1 MB	65 W	28 nm	A6-8550/A6 PRO-8550B	?	2	3.7(4) GHz	R5(800 MHz)	1 MB	65 W	28 nm	A6-7400K/A6 PRO-7400B	RUB 2,170	2	3.5(3.9) GHz	R5(800 MHz)	1 MB	65 W	28 nm	A4-8350	RUB 1,314	2	3.5(3.9) GHz	R5(757 MHz)	1 MB	65 W	28 nm	Athlon x2 450	RUB 1,775	2	3.5(3.9) GHz	No	1 MB	65 W	28 nm	A6-7480	?	2	3.5(3.8) GHz	R5(900 MHz)	1 MB	65 W	28 nm	A4 PRO-7350B	?	2	3.4(3.8) GHz	R5(515 MHz)	1 MB	65 W	28 nm	FM2 processors								Processor name	Price	Cores	Frequency	Video card	Cache memory	Power	Technical process	A10-6800K	RUB 2,885	4	4.1(4.4) GHz	8670D(866 MHz)	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	A10-6790K	RUB 3,551	4	4(4.3) GHz	8670D(866 MHz)	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	A8-6600K	RUB 2,170	4	3.9(4.2) GHz	8570D(844 MHz)	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	A10-5800K	RUB 2,578	4	3.8(4.2) GHz	7660D(800 MHz)	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	AMD FirePro A320	?	4	3.8(4.2) GHz	8570D(800 MHz)	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	Athlon X4 760K	RUB 1,030	4	3.8(4.1) GHz	No	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	FX-670K	?	4	3.7(4.3) GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	A10-6700	RUB 2,419	4	3.7(4.3) GHz	8670D(866 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	A8-5600K	RUB 2,367	4	3.6(3.9) GHz	7660D(760 MHz)	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	A8-6500	RUB 2,412	4	3.5(4.1) GHz	8570D(800 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	Athlon x4 750K	953 RUR	4	3.4(4) GHz	No	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	Athlon x4 750	?	4	3.4(4) GHz	No	4 MB	100 W	32 nm	FirePro A300	?	4	3.4(4) GHz	7660D(760 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	A10-5700	RUB 2,156	4	3.4(4) GHz	7660D(760 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	A8-5500	RUB 2,269	4	3.2(3.7) GHz	7560D(760 MHz)	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	Athlon x4 740	887 RUR	4	3.2(3.7) GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	Athlon x4 730	722 RUR	4	2.8 GHz	No	4 MB	65 W	32 nm	A8-6700T	?	4	2.5(3.5) GHz	8670D(758 MHz)	4 MB	45 W	32 nm	A8-6500T

Platforms FM1 and FM2

Socket FM1 is a processor socket with 905 pins. It was developed specifically for hybrid APU processors from AMD based on the Fusion architecture. We are talking, first of all, about Liano hybrid processors, which, due to the presence of an integrated graphics core, required not only a new design. Liano processors from AMD were presented in dual or quad-core versions with support for Direct X 11 GPU and DDR3 1600 RAM. All motherboards released with Socket FM1 for installing Liano processors adopted the UEFI system instead of the traditional BIOS. In the desktop segment, Liano processors and, accordingly, the FM1 platform debuted on June 30, 2011.

AMD has decided to rely on a new generation of Trinity hybrid processors with more powerful graphics and computing cores. Creating a more powerful processor for desktop systems required abandoning the existing FM1 platform. This is how it appeared, which is structurally different from FM1 in a slightly different arrangement of contacts.

AMD's new Trinity processors are based on an improved Piledriver architecture and feature powerful integrated graphics. They have a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller that supports operation in modes up to DDR3 1866. One of the main differences between Trinity chips and their predecessor Liano processors is higher clock speeds. If Liano processors managed to get close to the 3 GHz mark, then the older Trinity models can be overclocked to 3.8 GHz - 4.2 GHz.

Differences and compatibility of sockets FM1 and FM2

In general, the FM2 socket is a logical continuation of the FM1 platform, so the differences between the two connectors were not too significant. Upon closer examination, you can see that even in appearance, the FM2 socket has not undergone radical changes compared to the previous platform. However, these changes still exist. Although the pin layout of both sockets looks similar, the FM2 is missing one of the pins in the central part. Thus, if the FM1 processor socket had 905 pins, the new platform has only 904.

In addition, the so-called “keys”, that is, areas without contacts, are located in different places on the substrate for Llano and Trinity processors. Unfortunately, a different location of the “keys” will not even allow installing the AMDTrinity processor into the old FM1 socket. Some other subtle changes to the FM2 socket are related to power delivery.

Prospects for sockets FM1 and FM2

AMD has earned user recognition not only for its powerful and cost-effective solutions, but also for the fact that it has always strived to maintain the same design for several generations of its processors. This provided users with the ability to easily and quickly upgrade their PC by purchasing and installing a new processor. Thus, the policy of frequent socket changes has never been a hallmark of AMD. That is why the rejection of the FM1 platform actually gave rise to a lot of discontent among a serious part of AMD product supporters.

A Historical Study of the Company's First Integrated Platform

Experience shows that articles devoted to testing “old” (by the standards of the computer market) systems are usually no less popular than reviews of “hot” new products. And no wonder: even when their owners are no longer satisfied with the existing level of performance, it is still interesting to compare it with that demonstrated by new computers - if only in order to understand what is worth switching to (and whether it is worth it). It is naturally impossible to test absolutely everything released by manufacturers at least over the last five years, but it is quite possible to test some iconic processors. Especially when they themselves are interesting as stages of industry development or allow us to draw conclusions about some other products. In particular, this is why we decided (since the opportunity arose) to repeat one test from the year before, but using modern software. Yes, yes, we will talk again about AMD platform FM1.

Why return to her? Firstly, despite its short life, it was, one might say, a turning point in the development of the market: it was the first platform whose integrated graphics turned out to be implemented not according to the principle “so it was”, but was actually suitable for (albeit limited) gaming applications or "non-graphical computing" In 2011, this was fresh and relevant - let us remember that Intel’s proposals at that time supported the technologies already existing in discrete GPUs only to an extremely limited extent. AMD, on the other hand, has implemented full functionality and performance at the level of low-end discrete video cards of the same year, and not some distant past. Actually, later, competition in terms of performance continued to remain only internal - especially if we consider the budget segment, in which FM1 could only be fully replaced by FM2, and later FM2+, but not by the updated LGA1155 or LGA1150. Last year, however, processors with a more powerful GPU were released for the latter than in any AMD APU, but they also cost significantly more. What can we say about budget processors for the latest LGA1151? Something is possible, but for this it is advisable to compare the solutions of both companies directly and under equal conditions.

The processor component of the first AMD APUs is also interesting in its own way, although archaic: it goes back to the Athlon II of 2009. Despite their venerable age, such processors are still used by many, so they are also worth testing. But doing this is actually not necessary. As earlier tests showed, the performance of the A4-3400 is approximately equivalent to the younger Athlon II X2 215/220, while the analogue of the A8-3870K is older processors on the same chip, already sold under the Phenom II X4 840/850 brand. Moreover, the correspondence in this case is almost complete: the same number of cores that are similar in microarchitecture (and, accordingly, in supported technologies) allows us to count on the fact that even if the software changes, the processors will still behave in a similar way. So, having tested the two mentioned processors for FM1, we will get an estimate of the performance range of budget processors for AM3. And quite accurate. Intel processors for the LGA775 platform also fall into the same range - somewhere from Pentium E5x00 to Core 2 Quad Q9500. Here the comparison is, of course, more crude, but also worthy of attention.

In general, no matter how you look at it, it’s worth spending some time on the very first generation of AMD APUs. Today we will do this.

Test bench configuration

CPU	AMD A4-3400	AMD A6-3500	AMD A8-3870K	AMD A8-7650K
Kernel name	Llano	Llano	Llano	Kaveri
Production technology	32 nm	32 nm	32 nm	28 nm
Core frequency std/max, GHz	2,7	2,1/2,4	3,0	3,3/3,8
Number of cores (modules)/threads	2/2	3/3	4/4	2/4
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/128	192/192	256/256	192/64
L2 cache, KB	2×512	3×1024	4×1024	2×2048
L3 cache, MiB	-	-	-	-
RAM	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1866	2×DDR3-1866	2×DDR3-2133
TDP, W	65	65	100	95
Graphic arts	Radeon HD 6410D	Radeon HD 6530D	Radeon HD 6550D	Radeon R7
Number of GPs	160	320	400	384
Frequency std/max, MHz	600	433	600	720
Price	-	-	-	T-12650703

For the reasons stated above, we are most interested in two processors, but we will test three (since they already exist), adding the A6-3500 to the list of test subjects. Also interesting in its own way, since it occupied a special position in the model line: a three-core (the only one of all) with a good (though not the best) GPU, a TDP of 65 W and widely available (unlike exotic quad-cores for this platform with such a thermal package). And again, from the point of view of gaming performance, at least some We need A6, but there are no others.

We will compare this trio first of all with the A8-7650K: this is a much more modern and serious solution from the company, but the slowest of the newer generation processors we have tested. Over time, we plan to test, if possible, cheaper offers for FM2+ (fortunately, this platform still retains a good position in this segment), but for now there are none - we will limit ourselves to an assessment from above: the old A8 versus the new one.

CPU	Intel Celeron G3900	Intel Pentium G3260	Intel Pentium G4500T
Kernel name	Skylake	Haswell	Skylake
Production technology	14 nm	22 nm	14 nm
Core frequency std/max, GHz	2,8	3,3	3,0
Number of cores/threads	2/2	2/2	2/2
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	64/64	64/64	64/64
L2 cache, KB	2×256	2×256	2×256
L3 cache, MiB	2	3	3
RAM	2×DDR3-1600 / 2×DDR4-2133	2×DDR3-1333	2×DDR3-1600 / 2×DDR4-2133
TDP, W	51	53	35
Graphic arts	HDG 510	HDG	HDG 530
Qty EU	12	10	23
Frequency std/max, MHz	350/950	350/1100	350/950
Price	T-13475848	T-12649809	T-12874617

Plus three Intel processors: a modern Celeron and two Pentiums - one is just as modern, and the second is already a little outdated, but processors for the LGA1150 platform are still popular. Why did you choose the Pentium G4500T? We need some kind of Intel processor with a GT2 video core (which has now come to the Pentium), but the older G4520 is a clear overkill, since in terms of processor performance it very often outperforms even modern A10s. So we decided to take a slower model, even if it is energy efficient - in this parameter, the proposals of AMD and Intel have already diverged so much that it still makes no sense to compare them directly.

Testing methodology

The technique is described in detail in a separate article. Let us briefly recall here that it is based on the following four pillars:

Methodology for measuring power consumption when testing processors
Methodology for monitoring power, temperature and processor load during testing

And detailed results of all tests are available in the form of a complete table with results (in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). In our articles, we use already processed data. This especially applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (like last year, a laptop based on a Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD) and grouped by areas of application of the computer.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2016

The four “full-fledged” cores of the A8-3870K still allow it to compete with entry-level dual-core Intel processors in these programs, but they are already slower than a pair of dual-threaded modules of modern solutions for FM2+. The successes of the other subjects, of course, are much more modest. And what deserves the most attention is that the A4-3400 is already about half as slow as the Celeron G3900. What's wrong with this? Both processors are banal dual-core models without any SMT technologies and operate at almost the same frequency, but they differ by half. So just counting the cores does not say anything about performance even in a multi-threaded environment: the level of old dual-core processors (remember that the A4-3400 is also comparable to the Athlon II X2 or Celeron/Pentium for LGA775) is about half as low as that of modern ones. But we are not yet the most old model took - the first representatives of this class (such as Athlon 64 X2 or Pentium D) are even slower. And the first quad-core processors are only approximately equivalent to modern dual-core processors, which also gives food for thought.

Moreover, in those conditions when they cannot “expand to their full potential” - as in Photoshop, for example. Note that in this group of applications, generally speaking, modern Celeron and Pentium do not shine for many reasons. But they “do not shine” against the background of their peers, and not at all representatives of outdated architectures.

Single-threaded (mostly) application, where the new AMD microarchitectures do not look the best. The old ones are even, to some extent, more convincing - the 3870K has almost caught up with the 7650K, despite a significantly lower clock frequency. But this has been a struggle in the “basement” for a long time, so you don’t have to pay much attention to it: it works, and that’s okay.

Audition is a little more loyal to multi-core processors, although in principle this does not change anything - only the A4-3400 ends up looking even worse than in the previous case.

But in simple multi-threaded integer processing, the old A6 and A8 are still quite good - despite their very advanced age, they can somehow compete with budget processors. But if there are only two cores (as in all A4s) or three low-frequency cores (a feature of the A6-3500), nothing good comes of it. As expected.

Due to the lack of a common cache memory, “atlon-like” and “in life” did not shine in this kind of tasks, but, nevertheless, older models, as we see, can now compete with at least Celeron. The younger ones (which do not have a head start in terms of the number of cores, which affects the packaging time) behave worse, but it cannot be said that it is absolutely terrible.

Already within the framework of AM3, the company equipped its chipsets with support for the SATA interface, which was also preserved in the FM1 disk controllers, so in principle, processors for the latter platform can normally “load” the fast solid state drive, modern devices in that almost without yielding. In more complex scenarios, nuances are possible, but from the point of view of normal household use, no problems arise.

As we have already noted, this program does not have a very good attitude towards “virtual multi-threading” technologies, which played a bad joke with the new A8 AMD: it turned out to be almost indistinguishable from the old one. However, the computing capabilities of either one or the other, and especially the younger processors for FM1, are generally low from today’s point of view, so “serious work” is not their strong point. But they cope with the task. Slowly but surely.

So, what do we have in the bottom line? Even the A8-3870K is generally comparable only to modern Celerons. Of course, there are cases when it looks more or less good compared to the latter, thanks to the presence of four cores, but it also happens that quantity I can’t use it, but with quality everything is clear. The funniest thing here, however, is not this, but the fact that AMD’s overall progress in improving integrated platforms turned out to be almost worse than Intel’s, although it is most often customary to criticize the latter company. The A8-7650K, of course, is not the fastest processor in the family, but even from the Athlon X4 880K with a discrete video card and 16 GB of memory, we received only 129.5 integral points - the A8-3870K gave only 20% less. Moreover, this is not a top segment at all - even initially the processors were positioned approximately as competitors to the Core i3. The latter, let us remind you, grew one and a half times, so they left to fight on other fronts. Mostly with themselves or with Intel processors of a higher class, but from earlier years. But the “APUs” remained almost at the same level in terms of processor performance, despite the change in architecture and other improvements. But perhaps progress has been more noticeable in other areas?

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

Actually, it’s clearly visible why everything was started: the faster A8-7650K consumes energy much more sparingly than the A8-3870K. Moreover, we note that the technical processes are, in principle, comparable: the processors for FM1 were the first to use the 32 nm technical process, and they managed to improve it only by one step. And a small one: Intel moved from 32 to 22, and now to 14 nm, while AMD has only mastered the transition from 32 to 28 nm. Therefore, now there is no direct competition between companies. But don’t forget that AMD also managed to somewhat limit the needs of its devices - it was even worse before.

True, of course, against the backdrop of what Intel has achieved, all the successes are too lost. But they did something - that means they’re doing well. The first APUs were not only slow, but also very inefficient. For comparison, the Core i3-2120, even in a system with a discrete video card (which, as we know, only spoils the results) had an “energy efficiency” score of 2.15 points, i.e. more than one and a half times higher than that of its “peers” » A8 family. But so far we have practically not touched on the graphics, which are exactly what the early Intel processors was very weak, and AMD integrated platforms were purchased mainly for its sake. Let's see what it's good for now.

iXBT Game Benchmark 2016

Usually we present in articles the results of only those games that at least one of the participants can handle in at least one resolution. In this case, we decided to move away from this practice, since we initially have a clear favorite in the form of the A8-7650K, to which all others are not competitors. Therefore, we will consider in detail only those games that the A8-3870K can somehow cope with - there are not so few of them.

For example, "tanks" with which the mode minimum settings Even not the newest Intel processors can cope. When using the same video cards, they also turn out to be winners - due to their high “single-threaded” performance. But the power of integrated graphics is still different, which leaves its mark. In particular, in FHD mode, even the old A8-3870K easily beats all Intel processors with GT1 GPUs. Moreover, even the low-frequency A6-3500 under the same conditions outperforms the most modern Celeron, and, even more so, the Pentium for LGA1150. The A4-3400 cannot accomplish such “feats”, but you can play on it. And even trying to do this in “full” resolution mode - peers from Intel were not capable of this.

With “ships” things are much worse, but in general, older models for FM1 cope with them better than modern Celerons, not to mention the “previous” Pentiums. The latter are completely inferior to the younger A6. Pentium G45x0 is faster, of course, and how many years newer. In general, only the A4-3400 clearly passed the position, but no one doubted it - even “during its lifetime” it belonged to the very budget segment.

Both new Celerons and slightly older Pentiums in this, to put it mildly, not new game, if they can compete with anyone, it’s only with the A4-3400. And in order to somehow catch up with the A8-3870K, representatives of the G45x0 family are already needed. It's still like this. Which pales somewhat only against the background of the performance of the new A8, but new ones - after all, we are studying processors from five years ago (in case anyone has forgotten).

The A8-3870K nominally coped with the game in HD resolution - the Pentium G4500T did the same. It's clear that it doesn't matter it won't be enough, but more - for processors for FM2+, for example. And the Pentium G3260 looks very funny, announced at the beginning of 2015, but unable to in any way catch up with the youngest A6 of 2011 :)

In this case, everything looks a little better for Intel, but only if you don’t remember the difference of several years. AMD also did not stand still, after all, so the new A8 went far ahead. Intel processors too - but mainly compared to their predecessors.

The picture is already familiar: the Celeron G39x0 lags behind even the younger, older A6, the Pentium G32x0 is completely inferior to the no less ancient A4, the G4500T is struggling at the very least with the A8-3870K, and the A8-7650K towers menacingly above all this :)

Can FM1, in general, be considered a gaming platform as of today? No, of course not. Actually, even FM2+ is only conditionally suitable for this role - we have always been and continue to be of the opinion that if games are one of the intended purposes when purchasing a computer, a discrete video card has no alternative. But you can play some games (if imprisonment) play on IGP as well. From the point of view of today’s article, the most important thing is that to this day this five-year-old platform, in general, is not inferior to modern budget solutions from Intel. More precisely, Pentium and Core i3 with HDG 530 GPU are no worse than the older A8 for FM1, but all models up to and including HDG 510 (and the old “no-numbered”) are at best at the level of the lower A6. Or even A4. That is, the backlog at one time was very good, which is not surprising - after all, even the A4-3400 has a complete analogue of the Radeon HD 6450 built in, which is de facto still sold under the name Radeon R5 230. The built-in Radeon 6550D in the older A8 is closer to video cards of a slightly different level - about the Radeon HD 5570. In general, in those years, such discrete video cards were in demand, but here is an integrated solution. Which looks pale compared to the new proposals from AMD itself, but how many years have passed. And Intel processors are reaching this level only now, i.e. almost five years after the appearance of the FM1 platform, or about six - if you count from the company’s first GPUs integrated “under the cover” of the processor (albeit on a separate chip).

Total

The first thing to definitely note about the findings is that we did not encounter any problems during testing, despite using latest version Windows and a modern set of programs. Yes, of course, video drivers for older “APUs” are available only through Windows Update, but they are installed, and everything works fine - as in the case of Ivy Bridge from Intel (but with Sandy Bridge of the same 2011 as FM1, already there are some rough edges).

And in terms of hardware configuration, everything is also simple: completely standard (still) DDR3 memory, regular drives with a SATA600 interface, built-in USB 3.0 support, and expansion cards are used PCI buses and PCIe - there have been no significant changes in the market. The latter, by the way, allows you to slightly boost gaming performance if necessary, simply by adding a discrete video card. Of course, there is no point in installing an expensive one, since the performance of solutions for this platform is still low - the expensive one will not be used to its full extent.

To be fair, if we had tried to conduct such an experiment in 2011, but with a 2006 system, we would have mostly succeeded too. Problems might arise with memory (due to the transition from DDR2 to DDR3, which occurred at the end of the 2000s), but not with other peripherals. But with a computer from 2001 in 2006, everything would have been very difficult... AGP for video cards, Parallel ATA for drives, already exotic SDRAM or RDRAM memory - but why go far: in 2006, for testing we used the x64 version of Windows XP (and Vista was released at the end of the year), and the first processors suitable for its operation appeared only in 2003. In general, just until about 2005-2006. the processes in the market were quite stormy. After - one and a half changes in memory type (the transition from DDR2 to DDR3 and the ongoing process of introducing DDR4), and a leapfrog of processor sockets. Other interfaces have already developed evolutionarily and while maintaining compatibility. Software more or less stabilized in its requests, which grew only quantitatively (which was solved taking into account the compatibility of interfaces), but not qualitatively. And in some areas, no quantitative changes were observed: the computer on which you could install and comfortably use Vista copes just as well with Windows 10.

In general, it is not surprising that systems from five and even ten years ago are still in operation. What’s interesting is that processor performance grew faster from 2006 to 2011 than from 2011 to 2016, so that’s not really the issue (despite crying and moaning on this matter in various forums and others like them). It is clear that all those processors are already either slow or very slow - a lot depends on the year. In particular, if we return to our today's heroine, the AMD FM1 platform, then in 2006 it would have been top-end (this, of course, is a hypothetical comparison, but according to earlier tests, processors for FM1 correspond to the level of the best Core 2 Duo at that time / Quad, and their video part is worthy of comparison with good discrete video cards of that time), in 2011 - budget and only conditionally gaming, but today... You saw it yourself :) However, such systems have long since recaptured all investments in themselves, so what if productivity doesn’t work, then why fix something that isn't broken?? If something really breaks and/or stops working for other reasons, then when buying a new computer you don’t have to worry about the choice. As you can see, even the integrated graphics of Intel processors have already reached this level, and the new APUs from AMD are even faster. In terms of processor performance, both have also “grown” - albeit to varying degrees, but still. Thus, no matter what you buy to replace the old system on FM1, it will be at least as good, but at the same time cheaper. And if you don’t limit yourself to the cheapest offers, then it’s definitely better. In general, you don’t have to think about what happened, but simply buy what you need - as if there was no computer at all. In general, good news.

Every time we buy an AMD-based computer, we ask ourselves which processor and socket to choose? Especially now that AMD changes them almost every year. Will there be a prospect of replacing the processor in the future and what is the old processor good for? It is also important to know when there is a bunch of old hardware with different performance. And from all this you need to assemble a computer with tolerable performance. This table shows that there is a decent range for creativity. Especially for overclockers and gamers, a large amount of stale hardware accumulates. And it makes sense to rummage through the mezzanines and assemble, for example, a computer for the dacha, or for a younger brother/sister.

CPU	motherboards
		AM2	AM2+	AM3	AM3+	FM1	FM2	+ – Compatible; – Theoretically compatible, but compatibility in each specific case must be clarified on the motherboard manufacturer’s website; - - Absolutely incompatible.
	AM2	+	+	—	—	—	—
	AM2+		+	—	—	—	—
	AM3			+	+	—	—
	AM3+	—	—	—	+	—	—
	FM1	—	—	—	—	+	—
	FM2	—	—	—	—	—	+

It is clear from the table that, unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, sockets FM1 and FM2 are absolutely incompatible. Here you need to choose whether to buy a more expensive motherboard and a budget processor, or build a powerful PC, but on the previous socket. In my opinion, the solutions are equivalent. For example you purchased powerful computer on the outgoing socket, no problem, you will use it for several years. Although if you build a PC on a new socket, there is a prospect of installing a more powerful and more economical CPU in a year.