Fallout 3 Game Performance

Bethesda’s latest game uses an updated version of the Gamebryo engine (Oblivion). This benchmark takes place immediately outside Vault 101. The character walks away from the vault through the Springvale ruins. The benchmark is measured manually using FRAPS.

Fallout 3 - 1680 x 1050 - Medium Quality

Will $99 get you a potent gaming processor? Compared to anything similarly priced, yes, yes it will. If you're building a gaming box you're still better suited for todays games with a faster dual-core processor but if you care about multithreaded performance elsewhere, the X4 won't disappoint.

Left 4 Dead

Zombies? Check. Zombie killing performance:

Left 4 Dead - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (No AA/AF/Vsync)

If this thing only had Lynnfield's turbo modes it would be at the top of these charts. We get respectable performance out of the Athlon II X4s, just nothing earth shattering.

FarCry 2 Multithreaded Game Performance

FarCry 2 ships with the most impressive benchmark tool we’ve ever seen in a PC game. Part of this is due to the fact that Ubisoft actually tapped a number of hardware sites (AnandTech included) from around the world to aid in the planning for the benchmark.

For our purposes we ran the CPU benchmark included in the latest patch:

Far Cry 2 - 1680 x 1050 - Playback (Action Scene) - Medium Quality

The FarCry 2 CPU bench seriously favors the Intel CPUs. This is the first and only time where the Athlon II X4 looks like it doesn't make sense. Given its success in the rest of the suite, I'll give it a pass.

Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead - 1680 x 1050 - Mainstream Quality (Physics on Enthusiast) - assault bench

Faster than an E6300 (cheaper) but slower than a Q8200 (more expensive), the Athlon II X4 620 does very well given its price.

Archiving Performance Power Consumption & Overclocking
POST A COMMENT

150 Comments

View All Comments

  • The0ne - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    Whether you like to believe it or not, crippling or, in a nicer way, not release some of the features is pretty common in both software and hardware environments. Whether the decision was due to money, managerial ignorance, or a time-line it is still a feature that is not in the product that could be there.

    If you consider putting all features, which is impossible btw, then you run into issues where the consumer or market doesn't even need them. We have USBs, wireless, biometric security available in one of our product but 95% of the market could care less. They are still on serial lines and are uneducated on newer technologies. Most city halls are like this that is why you see plain old switching voting systems still in place and the occasional typewriter.
    Reply
  • The0ne - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    You mean like the I5? Reply
  • andrenb91 - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    it's just a cpu...I'll buy it when I need it, my amd athlon 4850e and intel pentium dual-core e5200 still good enough Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    Anyone know where you can get these? If not yet available, then when? I have a friend who needs a new computer, and the AII X4 620 would be a pretty good fit for him. I was somewhat grudgingly recommending the Ph II X2 550, but the X4 620 seems to offer much more balanced performance. Reply
  • pervisanathema - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    These results are meaningless. The intel CPUs should be forced to run 24x7 at their highest possible turbo speed. To do otherwise let's AMD lose by a smaller margin.

    i'm going to stay here saying the same until hell freezes.
    i'm not going to accept under clocked results presented as if they were stock results.
    this is a casus belli.
    i mean it.
    Reply
  • fitten - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    Heh... I see what you did there ;) I'm with you! Reply
  • johnsonx - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    lol Reply
  • ClownPuncher - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    I see what you did there! Nice job Reply
  • Exar3342 - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    For $50 more, you get a much more energy efficient and faster processor. I would only recommend this quad to those with a MB that supports it, they need an upgrade, and they don't have much cash.

    AMD can't be making much money off these processors...
    Reply
  • bji - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    "For $50 more" means "for 50% more" in this case. It's kind of ridiculous to talk about the difference of $50 in this context as if it's trivial. Those costs are not remotely comparable, so the implication that you might as well just spend $50 more to get the faster/more efficient processor is not justified by your statements.

    I personally always do target $150 for a processor price when building a new system - this is a habit I got into with my very first build, using a Pentium 100 which at the time cost $150. This means that a $200 processor which has better performance is not even in the realm of consideration for me, even though it is "only $50 more", which in this case, is an even smaller percentage increase than in the case you are talking about.

    Just in case I haven't made my point abundantly clear: you can't recommend spending $50 more for someone who has budgeted $100 for the processor. You have to compare similarly priced CPUs. I would like to see more comparisons with the Phenom II 550 BE for that reason.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now