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.
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.
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.
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.
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 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 140W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 08/13/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 955 BE | 3.2 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 125W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 04/23/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 945 | 3.0 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 125W 95W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 04/23/2009 06/12/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 940 BE | 3.0 GHz | 4 | AM2+ DDR2 | 125W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 01/08/2009 | 1.8 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 920 | 2.8 GHz | 4 | AM2+ DDR2 | 125W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 01/08/2009 | 1.8 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 910 | 2.6 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 905e | 2.5 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 65W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 06/02/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 900e | 2.4 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 65W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 06/02/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 820* | 2.8 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 810 | 2.6 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
| Phenom II X4 805 | 2.5 GHz | 4 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 4 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 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 GHz | 3 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 3 x 512 KB | 6MB | 09/16/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
Phenom II X3 720 BE | 2.8 GHz | 3 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 3 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
Phenom II X3 710 | 2.6 GHz | 3 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 3 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
Phenom II X3 705e | 2.5 GHz | 3 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 3 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
Phenom II X3 700e | 2.4 GHz | 3 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 95W | 3 x 512KB | 6MB | 02/09/2009 | 2.0 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 GHz | 2 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 80W | 2 x 512KB | 6MB | 06/01/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
Phenom II X2 545 | 3.0 GHz | 2 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 80W | 2 x 512KB | 6MB | 06/01/2009 | 2.0 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 GHz | 2 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 65W | 2 x 1024KB | - | 06/02/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
Athlon II X2 245 | 2.9 GHz | 2 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 65W | 2 x 1024KB | - | 06/02/2009 | 2.0 GHz |
Athlon II X2 240 | 2.8 GHz | 2 | AM3/AM2+ DDR3, DDR2 | 65W | 2 x 1024KB | - | 06/02/2009 | 2.0 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 GHz | 1 | 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.
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 |






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.


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.

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.
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.
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.
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.






