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
tamalero - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
by any chance you're a Intel worker? you sound like you do.maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
Intel did not do that. All the given evidences are false and could not prove anything.taltamir - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
"no competition to keep prices low"[sarcasm] Thats right, if only there was no COMPETITION prices could be LOW... it is a well known FACT that competition serves only to raise prices! [/sarcasm]
That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a very long time.
mm2587 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
wow. Way to fail at reading comprehension.The man is say if there was no competition there would be no reason to keep prices low. He was saying "if there was no competition to keep prices low, intel would raise prices"
So lets read next time before we call anyone else stupid.
silverblue - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
Not quite... at least, not in my opinion.On page 6, maddoctor posted:
"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."
I may have misinterpreted this, but his post seems to be indicating that if AMD were no longer in the game, Intel would have no competition and would LOWER prices in accordance. Something which, as we all know, not only wouldn't happen but is totally contrary to common business practices. If there's only one supplier, you're not going to go find cheaper options from somebody else; you'll be tied to that one supplier and they will feel less need to improve their designs.
As odd as it may seem, that's what I believe he was referring to.
SunSamurai - Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - link
You do fail at reading comprehension.silverblue - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link
Interesting statement to make when you fail to back it up.