AMD Athlon II X4 620 & 630: The First $99 Quad Core CPU
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 16, 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:
Four cores and you're good to go with video encoding. The Athlon II X4s are faster than the Q8200 and even the Phenom II X3 720. Intel doesn't have anything that offers better performance at $99 from a video encoding standpoint.
x264 HD Video Encoding Performance
Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source implementation of 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.
The Athlon II X4 continues to beat up on more expensive chips. The Q8200 and the E7500 don't stand a chance. Only the Phenom II X4 and Core i5 are faster.
The Core 2 Quad Q8200 is only able to match the Athlon II X4 620 in performance here. While I'm used to writing that AMD needs to adjust prices downward, here the pressure falls on Intel.
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.
The Athlon II X4s round up our video encoding tests in the lead. At $99 you can't buy a better quad-core processor, or even dual-core for that matter if you're going to be encoding video.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
150 Comments
View All Comments
AznBoi36 - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
Typo on page 2."Any strenuous video encoding however will seriously favor the Athlon II X4. Here we find the $99 620 tying the Core 2 Quad Q8200, and the 620 outperforming it - all at a lower price."
Should be 630.
zivnix - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
We look at the TOTAL system power consumption.We look at the TOTAL system performance.
Why do we compare prices of single components?
If you consider TOTAL system cost, we don't look at 60% price difference. It falls to, what, 10%?
And then even CPUs that cost more make sense.
flipmode - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
Does not make any sense in my opinion. I already have a case, a PSU, a DVDRW, several hard drives.... I'm not going to be replacing those for no reason. If you want complete systems compared, go look at system builder prices.mapesdhs - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
Anand, could you include a 3GHz AM2 Athlon64 X2 6000+ into the mix
when doing these reviews please? It would be incredibly useful to
know how the Athlon IIs and Phenoms compare to the dual-core
Athlon64s (no need to compare to anything other than the 6000+). My
older Asrock system is a 6000+ and the mbd can take the Phenom2 X4
3.2GHz - but is it worth it? I don't know. Reviews keeping leaving
out the Athlon64 X2, or if they do then it's some pointless low-end
such as a 5600+.
I expect Asrock will add BIOS support for these Athlon II X4s aswell,
so again some comparison numbers would be good to know.
And given earlier articles here and elsewhere, these new CPUs could
also be a very handy upgrade for those trying to get the most out
of AGP systems.
Ian.
PS. To everyone else: don't respond to the trolls. They merely seek
attention. Replying just fans the flames and is exactly what they
want. They know full well the points made back at them are correct,
but that's not why they're posting. Best thing to do is ignore them.
Natfly - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/The scores for the Athlon II X4s are up there.
subbotniki - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
Agree about including the X2 6000+ (great article though Anand).About trolls, AMD and the dragon: Myself is an AMD fan by consumer politital bias. I will always buy and use AMD. Therefore I love to read about a good product they have released. Beeing objective and fair, there are no ways today for an AMD chip to beat the Intel dito.
Hmmm..here everyone knock their heads into the wall - including me: What are we going to compare? Which chip, what cost (incl power eg), plattform etc. Even I hurt my head quite a bit. I've been into hardware for 17 years now (RIP Cyrix!).
The only real straightforward answer I give folk is: what (purpose) are you going to use the chip (computer) to/for? Next question is how big wallet you have and how much you are ready to spend. If money isnt a matter, then we don't need to speculate about whether superman or batman are the best; just buy the most expensive you can get hold of (and if that's not 'nuf - buy some more! In fact it isn't hard to build a system for $200 000. Just a money issue.. ).
I guess most people doesn't have that kind of resources, and the one who has certanly doesn't write comments here. We DO care about prices
and want to have as much as we can have for as little money as possible. Therefore I am convinced that when we messaure chips (consumer stuff) we have to look at the same price. It's not hard to imagine that a $100 000 car is better and fancier then a $10 000. It's also not to hard to understand that most people are going for the $10 000 car.
But if the difference isn't a factor 10 but more like...hmm x 1.2?
Back to basic: how big is your wallet and what are thoose xtra quids leave you with? Purpose again! I KNOW that most people can't tell the difference sitting in front of a 1.7 Ghz Sempron socket A and a core 2 duo 2.2 Ghz. Ever. I'm not talking to you computer freaks, I am talking ordinary stupid user here.
And what I really miss here Anand(You AMD-freak! :-)): Where are the test under Linux enviroment? Take thoose champ for other purposes and you'll come up with some different results..whereas Intel arent fed by MS-platform. Cryptography, MD5 checksum, fileserver etc are test I really miss. I do a lot of video encoding (always in Linux) and would love to see charts from a Linux platform (Yea yea, Phoronix is da shit, but I simply love Anandtech).
I'd better stop now - I know they throw thing @ AMD fans like me..
Peace!
yacoub - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
If they launch one of these at a 45w TDP, it could be great for a small form factor system with a uATX mobo. HTPC...arjunp2085 - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
Hi ,Was searching for Phenom X4 9850 Does not seem to be in the list .. Its not that old In my region where i live that's almost the price range the Phenoms sell for,,,
If possible Please Try adding those charts Does Athlon X4 beat Phenom X4???
blyndy - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
That's a bloody nice deal. So it's only about 70% as powerful as the top of the line processors. It has more than enough processing power for 90% of computer users, and it can handle all the latest games.P.S. "Overclocking suffers a bit as the chips capable of the highest clocks are destined to be Phenom IIs" I can understand that they'll turn a few crippled Phx4s into A2x4s, but why would overclocking suffer on a deneb A2x4 just because some cache has been disabled? Can you please clarify this?
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
Doesn't the part "the chips capable of the highest clocks are destined to be Phenom IIs" answer your PS? They test roughly how fast each chip can run, and bin them accordingly. The faster ones end up as Phenom II, the not so fast ones become Athlon II.