Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

New Triple Core Athlon IIs Are Great Value CPUs

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 29 comments

Three cores... so... Tri-Athlon?

AMD today introduced several new Athlon II processors that strike hard on the value proposition. In fact, the better 'bang for your buck' angle is one that AMD took by comparing to Intel's offerings.

AMD in its press release said that its Athlon II X2 240e processor "performs up to 70 percent better in media and entertainment benchmarks and delivers a processor cost saving of over $40 when compared to the Intel Core 2 Duo E7400…"

Particularly of interest today is the new Athlon II X3 triple core CPU, which we've explored in depth in our feature review.

The company further pointed out that the Athlon II X3 435 processor "delivers processor cost savings of over $100 while providing up to 75 percent better media and entertainment performance when compared to the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500."

The rest of the Athlon II line up looks like this:

 

In our final analysis, we found AMD's new Athlon II X3 435 as the best budget CPU for the dollar available at stock clock rates. Click here to read our feature review.

Discuss
Display all 29 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 14 Hide
    ssalim , October 20, 2009 3:08 PM
    Ominous PrimeIt's a good cpu for the budget sector of the market, also anyone else read the title and think it said "New Triple Core Athlon Is Are Great Value CPUs"? lol


    No, I read it as IIs.
Other Comments
  • -9 Hide
    ominous prime , October 20, 2009 3:04 PM
    It's a good cpu for the budget sector of the market, also anyone else read the title and think it said "New Triple Core Athlon Is Are Great Value CPUs"? lol
  • 14 Hide
    ssalim , October 20, 2009 3:08 PM
    Ominous PrimeIt's a good cpu for the budget sector of the market, also anyone else read the title and think it said "New Triple Core Athlon Is Are Great Value CPUs"? lol


    No, I read it as IIs.
  • 7 Hide
    Jerky_san , October 20, 2009 3:34 PM
    I'm really liking the power consumption.. an X4 2.3ghz with 45w? I'm freaken there for an HTPC or other low power consuming pcs..
  • -3 Hide
    amnotanoobie , October 20, 2009 3:43 PM
    Jerky_sanI'm really liking the power consumption.. an X4 2.3ghz with 45w? I'm freaken there for an HTPC or other low power consuming pcs..


    45W isn't its power consumption, it is its Thermal Design Power. The review here indicated that it consumes 71W at idle with a Asus MA4785TD-V EVO board.
  • 1 Hide
    cryogenic , October 20, 2009 3:48 PM
    65 Watt has always been the sweet spot for me (lower noise, smaller cooler, lower consumption) ... but those 45 Watt quad cores look really nice, me wonders about their overclocking potential ?
  • 0 Hide
    spongebob , October 20, 2009 3:58 PM
    Nice Ad.
  • 2 Hide
    Rock_n_Rolla , October 20, 2009 3:58 PM
    Sounds like a fast phased Tri-Athlon to me and with a less pricey sweat. :) 
    It provides up to 75 percent better media and entertainment performance when compared to the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 as AMD pointed? Its nice to hear that!
    Let's all wait and see for its benchies.
  • 0 Hide
    _SirO_ , October 20, 2009 4:12 PM
    so, we have nice desktop 45W Quad-Cores, and what about mobile CPU's?

    X4 mobile @ 2GHz / 25W would certainly get me.....
  • 6 Hide
    scook9 , October 20, 2009 4:15 PM
    So why aren't there any good amd CPU's for notebooks if they can achieve these power envelopes?
  • 0 Hide
    megamanx00 , October 20, 2009 4:36 PM
    AMD is really crowding the sub $100 space and I think it may be doing them more harm than good. Wish they would finally add that 4th instruction decoder to the Phenom IIs to distance them a little more from the Athlon IIs.
  • 6 Hide
    cookoy , October 20, 2009 4:59 PM
    I'm glad we have AMD around to apply a teeny-weeny pressure on that Intel giant. Yup AMD is small compared to Intel but its voice can be heard if the consumers support it - like "say No to RDRAM!", "say Yes to x64 and No to Itanium". I am particularly looking forward to getting one of those energy-efficient cpus. One thing AMD need to do is to push harder on the mobile market segment - they're practically non-existent compared to intel.
  • 2 Hide
    masterasia , October 20, 2009 5:07 PM
    What's up with clock speed nowadays. There's really no difference in 2.2 Ghz and 2.3 Ghz. Yes, you might encode a MP3 half a second faster, but who cares. With overclocking nowadays, just buy the cheapest one for your budget and overclock the hell out of it. What the hell is the difference between Intel's i7 860 and 870? Why do you have to pay almost double the price for just an extra 193 Mhz?
  • 2 Hide
    hillarymakesmecry , October 20, 2009 5:16 PM
    masterasiaWhat's up with clock speed nowadays. There's really no difference in 2.2 Ghz and 2.3 Ghz. Yes, you might encode a MP3 half a second faster, but who cares. With overclocking nowadays, just buy the cheapest one for your budget and overclock the hell out of it. What the hell is the difference between Intel's i7 860 and 870? Why do you have to pay almost double the price for just an extra 193 Mhz?


    They are indeed the exact same processor, but all processors come off the same line with different capabilities because of natural variances in production quality between processors. The cleanest examples are sold at a premium. While you can overclock the 2.2 to 3.0 ghz, the other will probably do 3.3. I guess that 300 mhz is worth it to some people, but I'm in your boat. Save your money!
  • 0 Hide
    buwish , October 20, 2009 5:42 PM
    They do seem like a decent chip for the budget minded. But I have a feeling the i3's will end up trumping AMD in the budget market. Then again, AMD has got a good head start on Intel in that market, so we'll have to see.
  • 0 Hide
    g00ey , October 20, 2009 6:24 PM
    cookoy... "say Yes to x64 and No to Itanium". ...


    I can feel ya but I'm dead curious about the Itanium2 chips. The computer architecture really needs a reboot and a new start on a clean sheet. Imagine how fast the CPUs would be if one relieved them of the burden of backwards compatibility with i386. A well-built CPU with a clean instruction set would kick ass. Unfortunately it seems that one has to be as big as Intel to carry out such a reboot.
  • -9 Hide
    papasmurf , October 20, 2009 6:25 PM
    I would rather sodomize myself with a pineapple than spend my hard earned money on a budget amd cpu. A phenom II x4 - maybe, but I'd rather go for a more stable intel platform. I built 3 systems at work with phenom IIs and 3 different motherboards not one of them can run a week without randomly restarting, or crashing. All the ram checks out in memtest, I even tried underclocking them and over volting them, swapping out heatsinks etc nothing seems to cure the disease. Maybe when their new architecture comes out I'll give them another shot
  • 0 Hide
    Honis , October 20, 2009 7:46 PM
    Anyone else see the Phenom II x4 655 Price drop $30 on newegg? As of this writing: $215 without the combo deals.
  • 0 Hide
    masterasia , October 20, 2009 7:54 PM
    Quote:
    Anyone else see the Phenom II x4 655 Price drop $30 on newegg? As of this writing: $215 without the combo deals.


    You mean the Phenom II X4 965. Yes it's down to $215. I still wouldn't get it though. 140 watts TDP sucks.
    The Lynnfields are only 95 watts TDP and can perform just as good or even better.
    If you have a Microcenter near you, $229 for the i7 860 is the best bang for buck right now.
  • 2 Hide
    tayb , October 20, 2009 8:23 PM
    Where are your notebook chips? Intel is dominating, no obliterating, AMD in the notebook market and they are worried about pushing out low cost desktop CPU's. Come on AMD. We've been waiting over a year for mobile core i7 and you've got nothing for me to counter it. What happened after Athlon? Fire your engineering team?
Display more comments