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
jtleon - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
Many thanks for this excellent followup post!jtleon
maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
Your post is pointless. Why Sony, Samsung and Apple is exclusively using Intel processors. Because they are know that Intel processor is more powerful and consuming less energy than AMD's craps.erple2 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
QUOTE BLOCK:
I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port.
/QUOTE BLOCK
In price? Or power consumption? I can't imagine it's anything else. The P3 was marvelous for it's time, but we've moved on since then.
(PS: could someone fix the quote block or any of the other rich text tags? Bold, Italics, Underline and Quote all cause an error when I try to post with them in it)
jtleon - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
In GAME! Try expanding your game portfolio - not all games = CRYSIS!LOL,
jtleon
fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
I agree not all games are crysis but I do feel like playing more than solitaire on my computer. GTFO.jtleon - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
I gladly accept your challenge.Please join me in FEAR Multiplayer (2005 release) at this very popular server:
===T=U=R=B=O+=== TDM
At your earliest convenience, BTW my usual res is 1600x1200.
Feel free to view my winning P3 box here:
http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/1480.html">http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/1480.html
Anand please forgive this post for being so off topic.
Regards,
jtleon
brotherkung - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Game portfolio? To what? Unreal Tournament 1 or Maple Story? Not everyone enjoys running modern non-Crytek titles at 800x600 with the lowest possible settings either. There are plenty of people in the market who are willing to pay a very modest price for decently performing low-midrange hardware.lukem33p - Friday, August 20, 2010 - link
Profit only works when the product sells. AMD has not created an image for itself amongst normal people. This is like the Wii vs the XBoX 360. No one cares about the XBox 360 even if it is a better value cause no one has hardly heard of it. The Wii is priced the same, performs far worse, and has far simpler games, but outsells because they found the market, and the market stays loyal.And yes, I own an ATi Radeon HD 5770, so I am not an AMD Hater. I just wish that AMD would be competitive in ad campaigns. Get the word out!
jtleon - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
After diggin through all of Maddoctor's delightful and humorous comments, I find myself asking this question...Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?
I think Maddoctor forgets that those in business of making computers can make MORE profit using AMD than they can make using Intel. After all, PROFIT is the driving force of business.
Joe public does not care what CPU is working for him, as long as the job gets done, in a reasonable amount of time. Joe Public could care less if he has supercomputing capabilities...for his VIDEO GAME.
I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port. The fact remains, 99% of computer users on this planet could care less who (AMD or Intel) is running their applications, as long as they pay next to nothing for the computer.
Even Maddoctor can understand this fact.
Regards,
jtleon
ravaneli - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
First off, is anyone from AT reading this? Why is that maddoctor guy not banned yet? He replies to every single post and is clogging the forum. As a matter of fact I think this new processor is totally pointless, but that guy is unbearably annoying to me. Just say what u want and shut up.My personal opinion is that this is just another one of AMD marketing gimmicks of faking 'keep development going'. They have no development going. Nada. Zilch. They first development that will hit the market will be the Buldozer.
Tell me what performance or price gap did this processor fill? Tell me what justifies it's existence? No it is not faster than the E7500. Are you kidding me? Look at your own diagrams for one's sake. Oh, by the way the E7500 will OC to 4Ghz on air!
This processor offers NO exceptional value at all. Not compared to AMDs line, not compared to Intel's line. This is the truth, and AT knows it.
That said, I am not rooting for Intel at all. I have the brains to see what will happen if AMD runs out of blood, because it sure is hell is bleeding like crazy right now. It has been in the red for a long time, and intel again announced fat profits yesterday.
Most Core2Duo prices haven't decreased at all for the last year and a half. I hate Intel for that. Why don't they do it? E8500 still costs ridiculous $189. Because they don't have to. Because AMD still hasn't come up with anything better than the Core2Duo. THe best they can do is match it.
Also, I believe the people that read this forum are PC enthusiasts, and even if they don't make much money they will save until they can buy a descent component. Who in his right mind is gona buy this ridiculously crippled and handicapped garbage? Even if I build a PC for my mom, I will just get something basic for $50, not this grotesque $85 uselessness.
I just hope things turn around with the buldozer and Intel gets some REAL price pressure.