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
blackbyron - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I am not talking about how good AMD is. I'm talking about business. Business is Business. Have you heard about Intel been fined for 1.45 billion dollars because of lawsuit? Intel does something illegal. If you don't believe and not satisfy what I said, google is your friend.Are you going get angry that Intel will start at $400 on quad core? Doesn't that make you worry?
qwertymac93 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
it seems a dual core is completely pointless when you can get a quad for a few $ more. any clock speed difference can be made up from overclocking, and power consumption isn't really that much higher. the dual core athlon seems to only have a place in notebooks, were a 10 watt increase can kill any demand for a product. in time the dual cores will fade out and only be seen in notebooks. with phenoms costing twice as much to make, i dont think they even make sense, why not make an 8-core athlon ll for the same die size?maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Only AMD worshiper will buy its products. AMD will never win the benchmark. Don't to become an AMD worshiper, get a life and buy Intel powered product.pullmyfoot - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
dude, shut up man. how old are you? 5?maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Are you mad? I belive currently you are using Intel based products, and further you will be using Intel products only because AMD will be no more in 2011.vexingv - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Anand's conclusion really sums it up. On the low end, AMD has got it locked. But AMD really has a busy product segment between the Athlon II X2, X3, and X4's. My quandary: I'm giving my current HTPC (AthlonX2 4200+) to my parents and was planning on replacing it with a new Athlon II setup. However, my main PC is an e7200. Now I don't know whether I should go low end (X2 240) for the HTPC or move up a bit (X3 435 or X4 620) and have my old E7200 be the basis of the HTPC and use the AMD system as my new main PC.decisions, decisions...
maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Whatever AMD product throws to market, rubbish is a rubbish. Intel products prices will make AMD's prices room tighter, and AMD is going to sink into oblivion. I love it because Intel prices will be cheaper to consumer.SunSamurai - Sunday, November 1, 2009 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...Thats a less expensive AMD CPU out preforming a more expensive Intel CPU
Suck on that a while.
Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
AMD has 13 Athlon IIs, 6 energy efficient, 7 normal CPUs, ranging from $60 to $143, with a quite a few overlapping processors. That's not even counting the Phenom IIs in that price range. Some of these might be OEM specific only, so that would simplify the lineup for the individual buyer. Even still, that's a lot of questions the buyer has to face? Faster dual core? Medium triple core? Slower quad core? Energy efficient/low heat? L3 cache?I guess one can say there's an Athlon II that will fits anyone's needs at this price range, but figuring out which is the harder part.
Ezz777 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Or stretch your budget to whatever an i5 is going for and get the best of both worlds...I'm currently budgeting for a new PC, and i find it hard to justify this sort of price point for a CPU. I'm not strictly Intel/AMD aligned but i just feel the i5 seems to answer most of these questions.
So...I guess then my question is what sort of budget for a Entry / Mid gaming PC would justify these CPUs?
And secondly, is there a rule of thumb you all use for what proportion of a PC you should spend on the CPU (or GPU for that matter)?
Clearly this will change due to the various offerings, but would does 25% CPU, 50% GPU, 25% M/B etc. sound about right?