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
SYSMark 2007 Performance
Our journey starts with SYSMark 2007, the only all-encompassing performance suite in our review today. The idea here is simple: one benchmark to indicate the overall performance of your machine.
Overall performance under SYSMark is pretty balanced for the Athlon II X3 435. It's faster than the $99 quad-core (620) but slightly slower than the quad core 630. We're slower than the old triple core Phenom II X3 720 though.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
hob196 - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link
Any thoughts on whether different memory speed has a greater effect on chips with no L3?jjpmann - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
How would the X4 620 compare clocked at the same speed as the X4 605e?wolfman3k5 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
I like the review, and I like the new products from AMD/ATI.That being said, I've read the posts. How many retards actually post here? Some of the comments are clearly unintelligent and stupid and bellow the standards of this website.
READ THIS: SOME OF YOU BLOODY IDIOTS BEHAVE LIKE RETARDS!!! STOP POSTING RUBBISH!!!
maddoctor - Friday, October 23, 2009 - link
Hey. Insist on Intel Inside. Intel Inside PC is powerful and intelligent. Other than that are rubbish.fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
I found it funny how Intel has only one cpu under 65w tdp for desktops on newegg and its a 1.8ghz single core celeron while AMD is about to release six at 45w tdp that will easily outperform it along with the two they already have out at 45w tdp.Accord99 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
It's just a general figure that's unnecessarily overrated for the C2D. All the dual-cores would fit within a 35W TDP and most the C2Q would fit within a 65W TDP.maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
No, Intel products are outsold and AMD processors can not sold because its products are rubbish in the eye of the consumers.SunSamurai - Sunday, November 1, 2009 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...Oh look a cheaper AMD CPU outperforming a more expensive Intel CPU
SUCK ON IT.
You're rubbish in the eyes of everyone here.
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
stmok - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?The European Commission can answer that one for you.
=> http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel....">http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel....