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
3dsmax 9 - SPECapc 3dsmax CPU Rendering Test
Today's desktop processors are more than fast enough to do professional level 3D rendering at home. To look at performance under 3dsmax we ran the SPECapc 3dsmax 8 benchmark (only the CPU rendering tests) under 3dsmax 9 SP1. The results reported are the rendering composite scores:
Offline 3D rendering should be another safe haven for the Athlon II X4. Core count matters and that's what AMD delivers. At $25 per core the Athlon II X4 620 is faster than even the X3 720. It's of course faster than any dual-core CPU in its price range, including the more expensive E7500. Intel's Core 2 Quad Q8200 is around 6% faster but costs 60% more.
Cinebench R10
Created by the Cinema 4D folks we have Cinebench, a popular 3D rendering benchmark that gives us both single and multi-threaded 3D rendering results.
Single threaded performance is where the Athlon II X4 suffers the most. It's competitive but still slower than cheaper dual-core CPUs. This is the classic trade off for all pre-Lynnfield quad-core CPUs, you give up single threaded performance for multi-threaded performance. Luckily for AMD, Intel's Core 2 Quads suffer the same fate. While the Athlon IIs find themselves at the bottom of this chart, the Q8200 is the slowest chip here.
Turn up the thread count and the Athlon II shines once more. Again, the 620 is about the same speed as the Q8200, but slower than the Q8400. Just where it needs to be.
POV-Ray 3.73 beta 23 Ray Tracing Performance
POV-Ray is a popular, open-source raytracing application that also doubles as a great tool to measure CPU floating point performance.
I ran the SMP benchmark in beta 23 of POV-Ray 3.73. The numbers reported are the final score in pixels per second.
At this point I couldn't write a more competitive position for AMD. The Athlon II X4 continues to do very well in our 3D rendering tests.
Blender 2.48a
Blender is an open source 3D modeling application. Our benchmark here simply times how long it takes to render a character that comes with the application.
Our Blender test has traditionally favored Intel architectures, and here we see the first signs of the Athlon II X4 not being able to keep up. The Phenom II X3 720 and Core 2 Quad Q8200 are both faster, but compared to Intel's similarly priced dual-core offerings AMD is still quicker.
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.