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
No, it will never. You can get a decent performance Intel rig with less than 500 dollar. Intel products will become cheaper and cheaper. Consumer will be more happy with cheap Intel products and they can choose it only from the most trusted brand for processor, Intel.fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
You can buy A intel rig for $500, yes. But, it will not be as powerful as the AMD $500 build. Taking into account you spend just as much money on the intel processor as you do the AMD processor. Or you'll likely spend more on the amd processor as there are many ways to cut corners and still have 95% of the performance of the other parts and get a better processor.doomedtofrag - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Yeah, your name says it all. You so badly wanted Hitler's thing in you, but since that no longer is a possibility, you are after Intel now???LSnK - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
So how much do Intel pay you? Haha.fitten - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
5) If Intel owns the Chipset/CPU/Graphics markets 100% that would be -bad- no competition to keep prices low, remember when a decent computer would cost over 3 thousand bucks?Kind of like Apple does now, then. ;)
maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Intel will not jacks up the prices at random. Intel is a good company with many OEM's respect to Intel. Intel did not do anything wrong, with its dominant power. This is AMD's own fault that it did not has manufacturing capacities for its processors production. This is the fate of Intel that Intel will own all.bsensible - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - link
Get real! Are you an Intel Sales rep? Without AMD most of us can ill afford a computer. The slowest one would cost over $1000. Business is business. There is no such thing as a good or moral company. They answer to their share holders, not to you or me. If you are only joking. It is not funny at all.fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
Yeah intel is a great company, other than all of the bribing, overpricing, trying to monopolize. Other than that they are a good company and make good processors/ssd's/everything else. IGP's blow so far though.dragunover - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
You nailed that one on the head.blowfish - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
not worth responding to such a troll! At least maddoctor seems very appropriate. Could do with brushing up on his written English, but then who knows what backwater he inhabits.