100 quad core

[reconviperone1]

Wow, amd pulled off a master stroke of genius, I'm gonna upgrade, my daughter, my nephew, and build my self a backup pc(although i wonder if the x4 620 is actually more powerful than my q6600),good job amd

 

[bige420]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=106&p2=53

 

[Wisecracker]

Anand hit 3.25GHz on the A-II X4 620 with stock volts and cooler - and upped the FPS to 18.9.

It takes a performance hit with no L3 but overall at $100 it's a monster. Be interesting to see which models in the beginning hit the unlock lottery to PhII.


From Guru3D

As the results show, the performance however definitely remains good enough for pretty much any application. Standard desktop workload, Photoshop, even video editing thanks to the four cores is really do-able.

You may compare it if you will, with Q6600 performance from Intel, and at 100 USD that's not a bad position to be in.

 

[Herr_Koos]

It's not

The benchmarks disagree. It outperforms the Q6600 in most apps, especially where L3 cache is not an issue.

 

[huron]

It looks like a good quad, especially at that price. Yes, it gets beat in certain places, but the Anand article points out where it shines in many.

 

[dunklegend]

What would be a good mobo for the 620?

 

[OvrClkr]

I disagree to a certain point, that bench is useless since it leans towards encoding and of course that is where you see the 4 cores shine... You can get the exact same results using an OLD Agena quad @ 2.6Ghz.....

So if all you do is encode/render all day long the I guess you cannot beat the price/performance that this chip provides, other that that it is a weak CPU.....

I bet the chip underperforms in gaming and other apps that do not require 4 cores....

As far as the 630 goes, just a sandwiched Regor with no real cache either.....

For the price it is a steal, if indeed your daily tasks benefit from all 4 cores and you are on a SUPER budget.... But it would be actually smarter to save a tad more and get a more powerful alternative, something that will actually last you at least 2 years....

 

[warmon6]

I disagree to a certain point, that bench is useless since it leans towards encoding and of course that is where you see the 4 cores shine... You can get the exact same results using an OLD Agena quad @ 2.6Ghz.....

So if all you do is encode/render all day long the I guess you cannot beat the price/performance that this chip provides, other that that it is a weak CPU.....

I bet the chip underperforms in gaming and other apps that do not require 4 cores....

As far as the 630 goes, just a sandwiched Regor with no real cache either.....

For the price it is a steal, if indeed your daily tasks benefit from all 4 cores and you are on a SUPER budget.... But it would be actually smarter to save a tad more and get a more powerful alternative, something that will actually last you at least 2 years....

i have to agree.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I disagree to a certain point, that bench is useless since it leans towards encoding and of course that is where you see the 4 cores shine... You can get the exact same results using an OLD Agena quad @ 2.6Ghz.....

The only difference is that the new Athlon II X4 620 costs a lot less than the Phenom X4 9950BE (Newegg has the Phenom X4 9650 for $10 more than the Athlon II X4 620) and also has a 95 W TDP rather than a 140 W TDP. Overclocking is about the same if you have an SB750 board, but again, the new Athlon II will run a heck of a lot cooler.

So if all you do is encode/render all day long the I guess you cannot beat the price/performance that this chip provides, other that that it is a weak CPU.....

I bet the chip underperforms in gaming and other apps that do not require 4 cores....

Then buy a Phenom II X2 545 for that hundred bucks instead. AMD here is just offering the option of a new-tech $100 quad-core. Before, new quads were a ~$150+ proposition.

As far as the 630 goes, just a sandwiched Regor with no real cache either.....

Nope. You should look at the Anandtech article that shows the picture of the Regor and the Athlon II X4's Propus dies next to each other. The Regor is a 2x1 MB L2 die, while the Propus is a native 4x512 KB L2 die. A few Athlon II X4s will be Denebs with the L3 cache completely disabled, but it's not in AMD's best interest to make Denebs with a working L3 into Propuses since the native Propus die is considerably smaller and less expensive to make. Plus, all of the Hekas and Callistos use the Deneb die as well.

For the price it is a steal, if indeed your daily tasks benefit from all 4 cores and you are on a SUPER budget.... But it would be actually smarter to save a tad more and get a more powerful alternative, something that will actually last you at least 2 years....

First of all, you better save a lot more. If you want a Phenom II X4, it's going to cost you something like $150 from what CPUs I have seen for sale at Newegg and such.

Secondly, an Athlon II X4 will last you more than two years as long as you are not a benchmark chaser. My four-year-old Socket 939 X2 4200+ has just recently started to be a problem with playing new games. Once you realize that a CPU is only a real bottleneck if your minimum frame rates still drop below 30 with some frequency despite a GPU upgrade, you'll be surprised at how long CPUs last. You don't have to upgrade every year just because your CPU is 20% behind the new units in BungholioMark or your framerates are 90 instead of 100 like your friends' with new CPUs are.

 

[cjl]

The benchmarks disagree. It outperforms the Q6600 in most apps, especially where L3 cache is not an issue.

Which benchmarks?

The ones I've seen put the 6600 ahead basically 100% of the time...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=106&p2=53

 

[OvrClkr]

The only difference is that the new Athlon II X4 620 costs a lot less than the Phenom X4 9950BE (Newegg has the Phenom X4 9650 for $10 more than the Athlon II X4 620) and also has a 95 W TDP rather than a 140 W TDP. Overclocking is about the same if you have an SB750 board, but again, the new Athlon II will run a heck of a lot cooler.

So if all you do is encode/render all day long the I guess you cannot beat the price/performance that this chip provides, other that that it is a weak CPU.....

I bet the chip underperforms in gaming and other apps that do not require 4 cores....

Then buy a Phenom II X2 545 for that hundred bucks instead. AMD here is just offering the option of a new-tech $100 quad-core. Before, new quads were a ~$150+ proposition.

As far as the 630 goes, just a sandwiched Regor with no real cache either.....

Nope. You should look at the Anandtech article that shows the picture of the Regor and the Athlon II X4's Propus dies next to each other. The Regor is a 2x1 MB L2 die, while the Propus is a native 4x512 KB L2 die. A few Athlon II X4s will be Denebs with the L3 cache completely disabled, but it's not in AMD's best interest to make Denebs with a working L3 into Propuses since the native Propus die is considerably smaller and less expensive to make. Plus, all of the Hekas and Callistos use the Deneb die as well.

For the price it is a steal, if indeed your daily tasks benefit from all 4 cores and you are on a SUPER budget.... But it would be actually smarter to save a tad more and get a more powerful alternative, something that will actually last you at least 2 years....

First of all, you better save a lot more. If you want a Phenom II X4, it's going to cost you something like $150 from what CPUs I have seen for sale at Newegg and such.

Secondly, an Athlon II X4 will last you more than two years as long as you are not a benchmark chaser. My four-year-old Socket 939 X2 4200+ has just recently started to be a problem with playing new games. Once you realize that a CPU is only a real bottleneck if your minimum frame rates still drop below 30 with some frequency despite a GPU upgrade, you'll be surprised at how long CPUs last. You don't have to upgrade every year just because your CPU is 20% behind the new units in BungholioMark or your framerates are 90 instead of 100 like your friends' with new CPUs are.

I respect your opinion but no, I do not agree with the fact that someone would rather spend 99.99$ on the Propus when there are better options for a bit more money, specially now that the x4's price will eventually come down to a respectable price-range. I know how long a CPU will last and that is the main reason I stated that you are better off spending a tad more so in the long-run you dont hit a wall due to bottleneck, or whatever the case may be. For someone on a budget is a highly recommended but that does not necesarily mean that the person will be satisfied with a CPU that is capable of "rendering" at higher speeds than a dual or quad that costs more. Maybe you are satisfied with using an old CPU for long period of time. That does not mean that everyone will be satisfied in the long-run using a cachless CPU...

Everyday I see peeps here on Toms complaining that their CPU is not up to par with their daily needs and some even ask themselves why did they skimp on the CPU in the first place.... That is my argument...

I could care less about the TDP.... I don't leave my CPU on 24/7... Maybe the Propus is a bargain server CPU... who knows... In my book the chip is crap =)

 

[jennyh]

It's not

It is.

I have a Q6600 and this is on par with it at least.

 

[jennyh]

:lol:

FINE. It is. Just for you tho jenny

It really is psycho. The Q6600 is oooold, great but old. The 620 is faster in pretty much everything...but I'm sure there are a lot of synthetics that will disagree.

 

[OvrClkr]

The only difference is that the new Athlon II X4 620 costs a lot less than the Phenom X4 9950BE (Newegg has the Phenom X4 9650 for $10 more than the Athlon II X4 620) and also has a 95 W TDP rather than a 140 W TDP. Overclocking is about the same if you have an SB750 board, but again, the new Athlon II will run a heck of a lot cooler.

So if all you do is encode/render all day long the I guess you cannot beat the price/performance that this chip provides, other that that it is a weak CPU.....

I bet the chip underperforms in gaming and other apps that do not require 4 cores....

Then buy a Phenom II X2 545 for that hundred bucks instead. AMD here is just offering the option of a new-tech $100 quad-core. Before, new quads were a ~$150+ proposition.

As far as the 630 goes, just a sandwiched Regor with no real cache either.....

Nope. You should look at the Anandtech article that shows the picture of the Regor and the Athlon II X4's Propus dies next to each other. The Regor is a 2x1 MB L2 die, while the Propus is a native 4x512 KB L2 die. A few Athlon II X4s will be Denebs with the L3 cache completely disabled, but it's not in AMD's best interest to make Denebs with a working L3 into Propuses since the native Propus die is considerably smaller and less expensive to make. Plus, all of the Hekas and Callistos use the Deneb die as well.

For the price it is a steal, if indeed your daily tasks benefit from all 4 cores and you are on a SUPER budget.... But it would be actually smarter to save a tad more and get a more powerful alternative, something that will actually last you at least 2 years....

First of all, you better save a lot more. If you want a Phenom II X4, it's going to cost you something like $150 from what CPUs I have seen for sale at Newegg and such.

Secondly, an Athlon II X4 will last you more than two years as long as you are not a benchmark chaser. My four-year-old Socket 939 X2 4200+ has just recently started to be a problem with playing new games. Once you realize that a CPU is only a real bottleneck if your minimum frame rates still drop below 30 with some frequency despite a GPU upgrade, you'll be surprised at how long CPUs last. You don't have to upgrade every year just because your CPU is 20% behind the new units in BungholioMark or your framerates are 90 instead of 100 like your friends' with new CPUs are.

The reason you are backing up your assertions is due to the fact that your computing needs do not require a modern CPU and that is understandable. My point is more towards a person who really needs a CPU that will deliver at a respectable price but will not let them down in the long run, the Propus is a great low end quad that can get respectable numbers when you compare it against an old Core2Quad... that's all it is, nothing more...

Bottom Line, if you need a CPU capable of MORE then you spend MORE. If not then you buy whatever fits your needs... IMO spending 99.99$ on a cachless quad is basically a waste of time and money unless you absolutely need it....

 

[Dekasav]

I love the term "cache-less quad". I mean.... it's missing an L3 cache, just like every C2Q ever.

 

[runswindows95]

I'm waiting for Windows 7 before I get one of these. It's a great processor for the money. Considering I don't spend more than $100 for a CPU, I will take a quad over a dual core any day. I don't game, but I do a lot of multitasking when I'm working(Open Office, a media player, FF, Pidgin, remote desktops, VOIP programs, and Adobe).

 

[OvrClkr]

I love the term "cache-less quad". I mean.... it's missing an L3 cache, just like every C2Q ever.

Yea but there is a huge difference between having 2MB of L2 compared to 12MB of L2........

AMD Athlon x4 2MG L2 / Intel Q9550 12MB L2 ........

 

[cjl]

I love the term "cache-less quad". I mean.... it's missing an L3 cache, just like every C2Q ever.

The difference?

Athlon II x4 total cache: 2.5MB
Core 2 Quad 9000 series total cache: 12.25MB
Phenom II x4 total cache: 8.5MB
i7 total cache: 9.25MB

Which one sticks out as having an abnormally low amount?

 

[medjohnson77]

Umm da first one? :lol:

 

[Dekasav]

I realize that, just the term is.... odd. It makes sense, and I understand why it's used, it's just.... all CPU's have had cache since I was...4.

I just found it entertaining.

 

[Wisecracker]

For the price it is a steal, if indeed your daily tasks benefit from all 4 cores and you are on a SUPER budget.... But it would be actually smarter to save a tad more and get a more powerful alternative, something that will actually last you at least 2 years....

First of all, you better save a lot more. If you want a Phenom II X4, it's going to cost you something like $150 from what CPUs I have seen for sale at Newegg and such.

{WARNING! Incoming semi-sweeping generalization but everyone is welcome to their own interpretation and conclusions}

Specific tasks do not necessary have to benefit from parallel threading using those 4 cores. As most everyone knows single-threaded apps may be 'assigned' a core using the cpu affinity.

In my case, some single-threaded apps (instead of running 'balanced' across multiple cores) see 10-15% performance gains when assigned to a single core (versus OS 'load balancing').

In my experiences Vista is only marginally better than XP at improving 'load balance' performance degradation. I haven't tried with Win7 as of yet ---- but I'm hoping for more improvement.

Stupid Example: I have a 'generally' single-threaded program that balances at 30% cpu utilization across four cores. I can assign to a single core, peg that core to 100% utilization and improve conversion rates 14-15%. So I'm actually reducing cpu overhead and getting better performance.

(It's actually a conversion program for ripping out OTA HD 'transport streams' - *.tp files - and converting them to DivX, Xvid or conventional mpeg2/DVD)

So that is where 'cheap cores' may also come in handy --- assign intensive tasks to individual cores on the back end and leave several cores 'unfettered' ...