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
Final Words
We'll start with the good news first. The Athlon II X3 435, priced at $87, is a better buy than any of the similarly priced Intel dual-core processors. In heavily threaded applications it's even faster than the more expensive Core 2 Duo E7500. Compared to Intel, the X3 435 is a clear value leader.
The problem is compared to AMD, the Athlon II X3 435 isn't that impressive. The Athlon II X4 620 is faster in nearly every multithreaded benchmark, and it's only costs $12 more. It's only in games and other lightly threaded applications where the 435's higher default clock speed makes up for its lack of a fourth core.
The Athlon II X3 435 is about $15 more expensive than it should be to make sense in AMD's lineup. It's a great step between the dual and quad-core options, but if you need the performance you're probably better off with the 620.
You do get better overclocking potential (thanks to lower thermal output of only three cores), but bring overclocking into the mix and you can narrow the clock speed gap with an overclocked 620.
Compared to Intel, I like the Athlon II X3 435. Compared to AMD, I'd take a quad-core 620.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Btw, Anand. I was looking for these Athlon IIs at Newegg, and I see an Athlon X2 5000+, 45nm, AM2+, 2.2GHz. Could you ask AMD where this came from. which die this is made from, why it's AM2+ only, etc?fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
This is the old Athlons, the k8 generation I believe. The athlon II's and Phenom II's are k10 generation, as well as Phenom I's I think.It's amd2+ because am3 wasnt out at the time it was made.
Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
no, it says 45m, even in AMD's product page. It was quietly launched, but I can't find any reports about it.Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
sorry about the double post. The web server claimed there was an error on the 1st post, but apparently it was properly posted.Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
no, it says 45m, even in AMD's product page. It was quietly launched, but I can't find any reports about it.maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Why you are care about this. All AMD products are crap. Period.blackbyron - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
maddoctor, you are a tool and a true idiot. AMD is not crap. Sure I use intel because its faster, but AMD needs to change. I believe you are 100% intel fanboy. Back in 2005, do you know AMD dominated the market? If you say intel is cheaper and better than AMD and you hope that it'll go out of business, then intel will might increase the prices that start at $600.Sounds bad huh, doesn't it make you worry?
Intel Fanboy = FAIL.
maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Hey, you are name calling, so just buy AMD's products now if AMD's products are not crap. Even you have admit that Intel products are faster than AMD. You see that, AMD is crap that could not design processor properly like Intel. This is an evidence that Intel's engineers are smarter than AMD.blackbyron - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
They are not crap, and I am not saying I like AMDs. The reason why AMD can't catch up Intel is they gave out rebates to customers and persuaded them to buy Intel cpus. Then EU filed a lawsuit against Intel for hurting consumers and were fined. Have YOU also heard about Intel that they paid dell 1 billion dollars not to use AMDs? You can't say AMD is crap. Do you know AMD makes really good graphics card?maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
What EC are wrong in their investigations. Intel is respect with law and did not do anything wrong. Just ask Anand. He will argue with me Intel is not a cheater and did not cheat with benchmark like AMD. AMD products are crap, if you buy it, you will regret wil its slower performance than Intel product.