AMD's Athlon II X3 435 & New Energy Efficient CPUs: Killing Intel Below $90
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 20, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3
Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:
DivX encoding performance is hot on the heels of the Athlon II X4 620, but still slower. Once more we're about the same speed as the Phenom II X3 720.
x264 HD Video Encoding Performance
Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.
x264 encoding performance is noticeably slower than the quad-core offerings. Even the 2.3GHz 605e is faster than the X3 435. Compared to the equivalently priced dual-core options from Intel however, the Athlon II X3 435 is without a doubt the chip to get. If you're encoding video however, you're probably better springing for the $99 quad-core.
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile
In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
It's funny how some people here are trying to guesstimate. I'm not an AMDiot like snakeoil.kiwik - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Exactly, you're the omega to his alpha, whatever that means.maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Whatever, please you must notice that everyone in Intel Investorhub website and AiMeD Corporation blogs have been talk like me that AMD will be doomed with its own not so competence in developing its products.kiwik - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Cool story bro.qwertymac93 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
you suck at english...and life 0_0maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
I don't care about it becaue I can't make any change with my comment.maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
I don't care your suggestion. I could not edit my previous comment.RubberJohnny - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
I didn't want to stoop to your level but...you speak the truth.Maddoctor you are a retard...have fun paying $1000 for your i3 when your intel monopoly wet dream comes true.
maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Intel products are cheaper. Price/performance ration is more favourable to Intel products. Only AMDiot will like AMD products. And Intel is not monopoly, this is the nature capitalism folks, if you don't have any competitive product, it is a grant to a company with the best product to crush you.tamalero - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
lol, this guy is for Intel-AMD what silicondoc was for ATI-NVIDIA.I wonder if Dailytech checked if its the same troll.