Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
AMD Athlon II X4 620: Quad Core For The Masses At $100
By ,
1. Phenom II Without L3 Cache = Athlon II

With the recent introduction of Intel’s new LGA 1156-based Core i5 and Core i7 processors, AMD faces even more pressure in the competitive upper-mainstream and high-end market segments. Phenom II is a great processor design, but it can only beat Intel’s growing Nehalem family on price.

However, it was only a matter of time until the firm introduced triple- and quad-core processors that don't include any L3 cache—a perfect opportunity for a comeback of the Athlon brand. Welcome the Athlon II X4, follow-up to the Athlon II X2 launched back in June.

What It Has

The new Athlon really isn’t new, although AMD introduces two fresh core names for it: Propus (for the quad-core family) and Rana (for the triple-core).

The first sample we received is a 2.6 GHz Propus blessed with all the features of the Phenom II, including its 45 nm SOI manufacturing process and four cores with 512KB L2 cache each. The chip also sports all of the extensions you’d want today: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Enhanced 3DNow!, the NX bit feature (or execute disable, on Intel CPUs), 64-bit support, AMD-V virtualization support, and Cool’n’Quiet to lower clock speeds and voltages during idle periods.

Since Propus is based on the Deneb design, all new Athlon II X3 and X4 processors can operate either on Socket AM2+ platforms with DDR2 memory or on Socket AM3 with DDR3. Clearly, the new processors represent an excellent upgrade option for older AM2 systems, especially if you consider the attractive $100 price point.

What It Doesn’t Have

No one should be surprised that $100 won’t buy you a top-of-the-line product, so we have to wonder about the chip’s limitations. The most obvious step down is the cache architecture. All Athlon II processors, including the already-introduced Athlon II X2 chips, lack any L3 cache memory.

Given this, the Athlon II X4 breaks with AMD’s tradition of implementing shared cache memory in unified multi-core processor designs. The L3 omission is the main differentiator between the Phenom II and the Athlon II families, although there are obviously also clock speed differences (lower on the Athlon II side).

However, the stripped L3 cache may introduce an advantage of one sort, as the transistors necessary to realize the Phenom II’s 6 MB L3 cache require power. It follows that the Athlon II X4 shouldn’t perform anywhere near the Phenom II X4’s level, but it could end up being more efficient.

2. AMD’s Processor Lineup: A Yield Party

All modern processors consist of three main elements that must be carefully balanced: core count, cache capacities, and clock speed. This balance must take into account the manufacturing process, possible voltages, clock rates, thermal and electrical limits, yields, and eventually total cost.

Shrinking the manufacturing technology—for example, from 65nm to 45nm—allows chip makers to optimize one or several of these parameters. Smaller and more efficient transistors can usually operate at higher clock speeds. But it’s also possible to add more cores or larger caches to increase performance. Lastly, manufacturers may leave processor designs largely unchanged and simply bring power consumption down. This approach can also buy chipmakers more time to collect experience on a new process before making modifications.

Since AMD does not have Intel’s vast manufacturing capacities (the company recently spun off its facilities into GlobalFoundries), it has to focus on maximizing output. As a result, the vast majority of AMD’s products at any given time are based on a single processor design that can be modified (usually simplified) to address different price points and market segments, all the while maximizing yield rates. The issue here is simple: one size doesn’t fit it all on the market anymore, but one size has to fit it all in manufacturing.

The Propus dieThe Propus die

Intel, by the way, has been doing very much the same thing. All 45nm Core 2 processors are technically based on the dual-core Wolfdale design, and the firm utilizes two of them to create the Yorkfield quad-core CPUs (Core 2 Quad, Extreme). Intel only modifies the dies by limiting L2 cache capacities. AMD, however, has been much more aggressive in creating different products out of the 45nm quad-core Deneb design. The company dives deeper into the dies, switching more individual units off (or on) to master the yield challenge. The result is sometimes different dies that all share the same origin. Here’s a quick overview of multiple AMD products all based on the same underlying design:

Deneb, quad-core, 6 MB or 4 MB L3 cache (2.4 to 3.4 GHz)
Heka
, triple-core, 6 MB L3 cache (2.4 to 3.0 GHz)
Callisto
, dual-core, 6 MB L3 cache (3.0 to 3.1 GHz)
Propus, quad-core, no L3 cache (2.6+ GHz)
Rana, triple-core, no L3 cache (2.7+ GHz)
Regor, dual-core, no L3 cache (2.8 to 3.0 GHz)

Editor's Note: Getting Turned On

Incidentally, AMD has confirmed that early Athlon II X4s are being sold on Propus and Deneb core designs, the former without any L3 cache by design and the latter with 6MB of L3 disabled. 

We dusted off our faithful ASRock M3A790GXH/128M motherboard, which we've used in the past to unlock Phenom II X3s and X4s, and then unlock Phenom II X2s. Unfortunately, while we've seen the screenshots of Athlon II X4s with 6MB L3 cache, our 620 ran with ACC enabled, but didn't unlock the L3 cache, while our 630 simply wouldn't boot.

As before, don't buy one of these less-expensive chips counting on an easy upgrade with the right SB750-equipped motherboard. Though a handful of processors might surprise you, chances are good that you won't get the equivalent of a Phenom II X4 out of one of these new Athlon IIs.

3. AMD's Athlon II X4 620

The Athlon II X4 is the first model in AMD’s L3 cache-less quad-core family, and we expect this processor to be very successful at the low-end. Not only does it represent the cheapest quad-core model available today at roughly $100, but it could very well become one of the most popular AMD upgrade processors ever. Since it is based on AMD’s 45nm manufacturing process, Propus is capable of running in a Socket AM3 motherboard with DDR3 memory, but you can also install it into any AM2+ motherboard once there is a BIOS update available. The new processor might even work properly without BIOS modifications on many boards (Ed.: and it indeed did in our older ASRock 790GX-based test platform).

The Athlon II X4 620 runs at a 2.6 GHz core clock rate with a 95W TDP. AMD will be offering the 2.8 GHz model Athlon II X4 630 by the time you read this. A faster model is on the roadmap for sometime in Q4 of this year, too. The same applies to the Athlon II X3 family, which launches at a 100 MHz higher clock speed than the X4s—hence the model numbers 425 (2.7 GHz) and 435 (2.9 GHz). Once again, a faster model is scheduled for Q4.

Our Propus sample behaves exactly like a Phenom II X4, offering four cores and running at the same nominal voltage levels. Different from the Athlon II X2, where AMD combines the L2 cache capacity of all four cores for use with only two cores, yielding  2 x 1024KB, the Athlon II X3 and X4 models have 512 KB L2 cache per core (like all Phenom IIs).

Unfortunately, our sample is still a C2 part, although AMD has started switching to the newer C3 stepping. We’ll look at the stepping differences as soon as we can get two otherwise-identical Cs and C3 models. Some time ago, we looked at four virtually identical Athlon 64 X2 5000+ processors that all only differed in their F2, F3, G1, and G2 steppings. Since there were interesting differences then, we’re curious to see whether or not AMD and GlobalFoundries could actually improve some characteristics of the Phenom II core now.

4. All AMD 45nm Processor Models Compared

High-End/Mainstream: Phenom II X4 (Deneb Quad Core)

Model
Clock Speed
Cores
Socket / Memory
TDP
L2 Cache
L3 Cache
Release
Hyper Transport
Phenom II X4 965 BE
3.4 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2140W4 x 512KB
6MB08/13/20092.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 955 BE
3.2 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2125W4 x 512KB6MB04/23/20092.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 945
3.0 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2125W
95W
4 x 512KB6MB04/23/2009
06/12/2009
2.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 940 BE
3.0 GHz4
AM2+ DDR2125W
4 x 512KB6MB01/08/20091.8 GHz
Phenom II X4 920
2.8 GHz4
AM2+ DDR2125W4 x 512KB6MB01/08/20091.8 GHz
Phenom II X4 910
2.6 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W4 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 905e
2.5 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR265W4 x 512KB6MB06/02/20092.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 900e
2.4 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR265W4 x 512KB6MB06/02/20092.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 820*
2.8 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W4 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 810
2.6 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W4 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz
Phenom II X4 805
2.5 GHz4
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W4 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz

* new

Mainstream: Phenom II X3 (Heka Triple-Core, based on Deneb)

Model
Clock Speed
Cores
Socket / Memory
TDP
L2 Cache
L3 Cache
Release
Hyper Transport

Phenom II X3 740*

3.0 GHz3
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W3 x 512 KB6MB09/16/20092.0 GHz

Phenom II X3 720 BE

2.8 GHz3
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W3 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz

Phenom II X3 710

2.6 GHz3
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W3 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz

Phenom II X3 705e

2.5 GHz3
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W3 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz

Phenom II X3 700e

2.4 GHz3
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR295W3 x 512KB6MB02/09/20092.0 GHz

* new

Mainstream: Phenom II X2 (Callisto Dual-Core, based on Deneb)

Model
Clock Speed
Cores
Socket / Memory
TDP
L2 Cache
L3 Cache
Release
Hyper Transport

Phenom II X2 550 BE

3.1 GHz2
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR280W2 x 512KB
6MB06/01/20092.0 GHz

Phenom II X2 545

3.0 GHz2
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR280W2 x 512KB
6MB06/01/20092.0 GHz

Low Cost: Athlon II X2 (Regor Dual-Core)

Model
Clock Speed
Cores
Socket / Memory
TDP
L2 Cache
L3 Cache
Release
Hyper Transport

Athlon II X2 250

3.0 GHz2

AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2

65W2 x 1024KB
-
06/02/20092.0 GHz

Athlon II X2 245

2.9 GHz2
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR265W2 x 1024KB-
06/02/20092.0 GHz

Athlon II X2 240

2.8 GHz2
AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR265W2 x 1024KB-
06/02/20092.0 GHz

Low Cost: Sempron (Sargas Single-Core)

Model
Clock Speed
Cores
Socket / Memory
TDP
L2 Cache
L3 Cache
Release
Hyper Transport

Sempron 140

2.7 GHz1

AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2

45 W
1024KB-
-
2.0 GHz

We will stop here, as we’ve listed all 45nm AMD processors. There still are lots of 65nm chips based on the quad-core Agena (Phenom 9000-series) and the triple-core Toliman (Phenom 8000), as well as the Athlon X2, which is based on the dual-core Kuma. All of them were designed for Socket AM2+ and DDR2 memory, but since the 45nm generation is compatible with both AM3/DDR3 and AM2+/DDR2, this is clearly the better choice.

New: Athlon II X3 and Athlon II X4

Today’s AMD processor introduction, the Athlon II X4, represents the first step to introducing Deneb-based triple- and quad-core processors that run without L3 caches. AMD started with the Athlon II X4 620 at 2.6 GHz, but two models at higher clock speeds will also be available shortly. The Athlon II X3 has already appeared on several roadmaps and will be introduced at the same time.

Other than that, AMD is about to switch from its C2 stepping to C3, which should reduce the TDP on a number of processors. For instance, the Phenom II X4 965 flagship is expected to go from 140W to 125W and the Phenom II X4 945 will change from 125W to 95W.

5. Test Setup And Benchmarks

For comparison, we squared off Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33 GHz), Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83 GHz), and the Core 2 Duo E8600 (3.33 GHz) against AMD’s Phenom II X2 550 (3.1 GHz) and the Phenom II X4 965 BE (3.4 GHz). For more comprehensive processor comparisons, please have a look at our 2009 Desktop CPU Charts.

System Hardware
Hardware
Details
Performance Benchmarks
Motherboard (Socket AM3)
Gigabyte MA790FXT-UD5P (Rev. 1.0)
Chipset: AMD 790GX, SB750
BIOS: 5c (04/01/2009)
RAM DDR3 (Dual)
2 x 2GB DDR3-1600 (Corsair CM3X2G1600C9DHX)
2 x 1GB DDR3-1600 (Crucial BL12864BA1608.8SFB)
Power Benchmarks
Motherboard (Socket AM3)
MSI 770-C45 (Rev. 1.1)
Chipset: AMD 770GX, SB710
BIOS: 1.2
RAM DDR3 (Dual)
2 x 2GB DDR3-1600 (Corsair TR3X6G-1600C8D 8-8-8-24)
Common Hardware
CPU AMD I
AMD Phenom II X4 965 (45nm, 3.4 GHz, 4 x 512KB L2 and 6MB L3 Cache, TDP 140W, Rev. C2)
CPU AMD II
AMD Phenom II X2 550 (45nm, 3.1 GHz, 2 x 512KB L2 and 6MB L3 Cache, TDP 80W, Rev. C2)
CPU AMD III
AMD Athlon II X4 620 (45nm, 2.6 GHz, 4 x 512KB L2 Cache, TDP 95W, Rev. C2)
Graphics
Zotac GeForce GTX 260²
GPU: GeForce GTX 260 (576 MHz)
Graphics RAM: 896MB DDR3 (1998 MHz)
Stream Processors: 216
Shader Clock: 1242 MHz
Hard Drive
Western Digital VelociRaptor, 300GB (WD3000HLFS)
10,000 RPM, SATA/300, 16MB Cache
Blu-Ray Drive
LG GGW-H20L, SATA/150
Power supply
PC Power & Cooling, Silencer 750EPS12V 750W
System Software and Drivers
Operating System
Windows Vista Enterprise Version 6.0 x64
Service Pack 2 (Build 6000)
Drivers and Settings
AMD Chipset Drivers
Catalyst 9.4
Intel Chipset Drivers
Chipset Installation Utility Ver. 9.1.0.1012
Intel Storage Drivers
Matrix Storage Drivers Ver. 8.8.0.1009


We used an efficient motherboard for our power testing, the MSI 770-C45, since we wanted to be sure that the power consumption levels of our comparison would reflect everyday use. In other words, hardly anyone will purchase the $100 Athlon II X4 processor and run it on a high-end motherboard. Our Gigabyte’s MX790FXT-UD5P remained the platform for all performance benchmarks.

Benchmarks

3D Games Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
Far Cry 2
Version: 1.0.1
Far Cry 2 Benchmark Tool
Video Mode: 1280x800
Direct3D 9
Overall Quality: Medium
Bloom activated
HDR off
Demo: Ranch Small
GTA IV
Version: 1.0.3
Video Mode: 1280x1024
- 1280x1024
- Aspect Ratio: Auto
- All options: Medium
- View Distance: 30
- Detail Distance: 100
- Vehicle Density: 100
- Shadow Density: 16
- Definition: On
- Vsync: Off
In-game Benchmark
Left 4 Dead
Version: 1.0.0.5
Video Mode: 1280x800
Game Settings
- Anti Aliasing none
- Filtering Trilinear
- Wait for vertical sync disabled
- Shader Detail Medium
- Effect Detail Medium
- Model/Texture Detail Medium
Demo: THG Demo 1
Audio Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
iTunes
Version: 8.1.0.52
Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min.
Convert to AAC audio format
Lame MP3
Version 3.98
Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min
convert WAV to MP3 audio format
Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kbps)
Video Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
TMPEG 4.6
Version: 4.6.3.268
Video: Terminator 2 SE DVD (720x576, 16:9) 5 Minutes
Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Kanal, English
Advanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160 Kbps, 44.1 kHz)
DivX 6.8.5
Version: 6.8.5
== Main Menu ==
default
== Codec Menu ==
Encoding mode: Insane Quality
Enhanced multithreading
Enabled using SSE4
Quarter-pixel search
== Video Menu ==
Quantization: MPEG-2
XviD 1.2.1
Version: 1.2.1
Other Options / Encoder Menu -
Display encoding status = off
Mainconcept Reference 1.6.1
Version: 1.6.1
MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264)
MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec
28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2)
Audio:
MPEG2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16 Bit, 224 kbps)
Codec: H.264
Mode: PAL (25 FPS)
Profile: Settings for eight threads
Adobe Premiere pro CS4
Version: 4.0
WMV 1920x1080 (39 sec)
Export: Adobe Media Encoder
== Video ==
H.264 Blu-ray
1440x1080i 25 High Quality
Encoding Passes: one
Bitrate Mode: VBR
Frame: 1440x1080
Frame Rate: 25
== Audio ==
PCM Audio, 48 kHz, Stereo
Encoding Passes: one
Application Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
Grisoft AVG Anti Virus 8
Version: 8.5.287
Virus base: 270.12.16/2094
Benchmark
Scan: some compressed ZIP and RAR archives
Winrar 3.9
Version 3.90 x64 BETA 1
Compression = Best
Benchmark: THG-Workload
Winzip 12
Version 12.0 (8252)
WinZIP Commandline Version 3
Compression = Best
Dictionary = 4096 KB
Benchmark: THG-Workload
Autodesk 3D Studio Max 2009
Version: 9 x64
Rendering Dragon Image
Resolution: 1920 x 1280 (frame 1-5)
Adobe Photoshop CS4 (64-Bit)
Version: 11
Filtering a 16MB TIF (15000x7266)
Filters:
Radial Blur (Amount: 10; Method: zoom; Quality: good)
Shape Blur (Radius: 46 px; custom shape: Trademark symbol)
Median (Radius: 1px)
Polar Coordinates (Rectangular to Polar)
Adobe Acrobat 9 professional
Version: 9.0.0 (Extended)
== Printing Preferenced Menu ==
Default Settings: Standard
== Adobe PDF Security - Edit Menu ==
Encrypt all documents (128 bit RC4)
Open Password: 123
Permissions Password: 321
Microsoft PowerPoint 2007
Version: 2007 SP2
PPT to PDF
Powerpoint Document (115 Pages)
Adobe PDF-Printer
Deep Fritz 11
Version: 11
Fritz Chess Benchmark Version 4.2
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
3DMark Vantage
Version: 1.02
Options: Performance
Graphics Test 1
Graphics Test 2
CPU Test 1
CPU Test 2
PCMark Vantage
Version: 1.00
PCMark Benchmark
Memories Benchmark
SiSoftware Sandra 2009
Version: 2009 SP3
Processor Arithmetic, Cryptography, Memory Bandwith
6. Benchmark Results: Sandra 2009, PCMark Vantage

In SiSoftware’s Sandra 2009 benchmark suite, the new Athlon II X4 620 at 2.6 GHz is almost a match for the Core 2 Quad Q8200. We used the low-power Q8200S, which delivers exactly the same performance as the regular Q8200.

7. Benchmark Results: 3DMark, 3D Games

3DMark Vantage

AMD’s new entry-level quad-core delivers good performance, but it only beats the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 and the dual-cores in 3DMark’s CPU test.

Games

Intel’s Core 2 architecture delivers more performance per clock in Far Cry. Even the Phenom II X2 550 can beat the new quad-core thanks to its faster clock speed. However, the gap isn’t too large.

AMD’s Athlon II X4 620 is a match for the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in GTA IV. This game title benefits from quad-core processors more than from fast clock speeds.

Left 4 Dead is sensitive to clock speed, hence the other processors are faster.

8. Benchmark Results: Applications

3ds Max rendering runs best on fast quad-core processors, but the Propus still does OK here.

Checking for viruses using AVG Anti-Virus is a simple story: quad-cores win, dual-cores lose.

PDF document creation using Microsoft PowerPoint is memory-sensitive, and it also benefits from fast clock speeds. The Core 2 architecture delivers more performance per clock.

Adobe’s Photoshop is probably the most popular image editing software, hence we’ve been using it as a benchmarking tool. Version CS4 was heavily optimized for multi-core processors, but it seems to run much better on Intel hardware. You need AMD’s top model to get really fast performance in Photoshop. AMD’s dual-core Phenom II falls behind here. The new Athlon II X4 620 makes a fair showing and matches Intel’s Core 2 Duo top model.

WinRAR is very memory-sensitive and thread-optimized, and it can take advantage of multiple processing cores. The missing L3 cache clearly seems to be an issue for file compression with WinRAR. All other processors are faster due to their better cache architecture or higher clock speeds.

WinZip isn’t optimized for multi-core, which is why CPUs with the highest clock speed and the best performance per clock win. The new AMD loses one minute to its direct Intel competitor, the Core 2 Quad Q8200.

Check these great Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 results. The Athlon II X4 even matches the performance of Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9550, which runs at a faster clock speed. Obviously, not all benchmarks benefit from large cache architectures.

The chess game Fritz 11 wants as many cores as possible, and it also scales well with clock speed. As a result, the new AMD processor shows nice performance, but it can’t beat Intel’s Core 2 Quad family.

9. Benchmark Results: Audio/Video

Audio Encoding Benchmarks

Apple’s iTunes wants clock speed and performance per clock cycle since it isn’t optimized to take advantage of multi-core processors.

The same applies to Lame. The Core 2 Duo E8600 at 3.33 GHz is tops here.

Video Transcoding Benchmarks

AMD’s Athlon II X4 620 can beat its main competitor, the Core 2 Quad Q8200, in the DivX video transcoding benchmark.

However, AMD’s chip cannot beat the Q8200 in the same test using the XviD codec.

The MainConcept H.264 encoder is well-optimized to take advantage of multiple cores, explaining why the new Athlon II X4 does really well in this benchmark.

10. Power Consumption And Efficiency

System Power Consumption at the Plug

The new entry-level quad-core is not capable of beating the Phenom II X2’s system idle power of 82W on our test system. It is still slightly lower on power than the current top model, but the conclusion here is clear: you don’t save idle power by purchasing a simpler processor in the case of the AMD platform.

The situation is entirely different at peak load. AMD’s top model is a power hog compared to the two others. The new Athlon II X4 620 is relatively low on power given that it can stomp dual-core CPUs once the applications are optimized to take advantage of four processing cores.

The total power required for a full PCMark Vantage run is lowest on the Athlon II X4. This test does not consider performance at all.

System Power Efficiency

The average power required during a full PCMark Vantage run was slightly lower on the new Athlon II X4 620 than on the dual core Phenom II X2 550.

Bottom line: stripping away the L3 cache from the Phenom II makes the resulting Athlon II an efficient product when looking at PCMark Vantage performance per watt. Just keep in mind that we aren’t comparing at the same clock speeds, so this statement only applies to the CPU models and speeds we examined.

11. Conclusion

AMD’s move into entry–level, quad-core processors without L3 cache was inevitable. The Athlon II X2 was the first 45nm product to take advantage of the Phenom II architecture at lower price points. Athlon II X3 and X4 now complete the low–end portfolio, allowing AMD to monetize virtually every processor die manufactured—as long as it has at least two or more working cores. Traditionally, AMD is careful with clock speeds when introducing new processors. The company ships mainstream clock speeds first and will follow up with faster models. AMD probably needs to pile up a certain amount of eligible dies before shipping such “new” products.

Average Performance

As expected, the Athlon II X4 620 at 2.6 GHz is far from being a high-performance part. Traditional applications without optimizations for multi-core architectures (Far Cry, Left 4 Dead, WinZip, PDF creation) run well, but not particularly quickly due to the limited clock speed. Consequently, a Core 2 Duo at high clock speeds remains a better (albeit more expensive) choice. Strongly threaded applications, however, do amazingly well on this new entry-level AMD chip. There are several benchmarks in which the new Athlon II X4 massively outperforms its dual-core competition (GTA IV, Fritz 11, 3ds Max, Adobe Premiere, MainConcept, synthetic benchmarks).

Matching Core 2 Quad Q8200 at Lower Cost

The main competitor for the Athlon II X4 is Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q8000-series. In most benchmarks, the AMD processor gets close to the Q8200, but it can only beat it in a few of them (DivX, MainConcept, Adobe Premiere). However, AMD’s price point once again is lower than Intel’s, and the fact that an average mainstream AMD motherboard is still cheaper than an Intel equivalent leans the needle toward AMD. From a bang-per-buck perspective, the X4 620 is a smart move that brings quad-core performance into the low-end.

A New Upgrade Option

Finally, we want to point at the fact that the new processors, be it the Athlon II X3 or X4, are perfectly able to run on old Socket AM2 platforms. Should you consider keeping your mature Athlon 64 X2 system a while longer—let’s say until SATA/600 and USB 3.0 become mainstream in mid-2010—then buying an Athlon II X4 as a replacement for an older Athlon 64 X2 seems like a perfect option. Just be sure to check your motherboard manufacturer’s Web site for BIOS updates before purchasing.