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
A month ago AMD introduced the world’s first quad-core processor to debut at $99. Last week, AMD announced its third quarter earnings for 2009. While the company as a whole lost money, the Product Company (CPU and GPU design) turned a small profit. I don’t want to say that the worst is behind AMD, but things are definitely looking up.
| Income | Q3 2009 | Q2 2009 | Q1 2009 |
| AMD | -$128 Million | -$330 Million | -$416 Million |
| AMD Product Company | +$2 Million | -$244 Million | -$308 Million |
And for the consumer, AMD is providing a ton of value these days. You're getting more transistors per dollar than Intel will give you, and it's not just bloat, these things are fast:
| Processor | Cores | Manufacturing Process | L1 Cache | L2 Cache | L3 Cache | Die Size | Transistor Count |
| AMD Phenom II X4 | 4 | 45nm | 128KB per core | 512KB per core | 6MB | 258 mm2 | 758M |
| AMD Athlon II X4/X3 | 4 | 45nm | 128KB per core | 512KB per core | 0MB | 169 mm2 | 300M |
| AMD Athlon II X2 | 2 | 45nm | 128KB per core | 1MB per core | 0MB | 117 mm2 | 234M |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q8xxx | 4 | 45nm | 64KB per core | 4MB | 0MB | 164 mm2 | 456M |
| Intel Pentium E6xxx | 2 | 45nm | 64KB per core | 2MB | 0MB | 82 mm2 | 228M |
The value train continues with todays introduction of the first triple core Athlon II processors: the Athlon II X3 435 and 425. Clocked at 2.9GHz and 2.7GHz respectively, these processors are simply Athlon II X4s with one core disabled.
They’re also quite affordable. The 435 will set you back $87 while the 425 costs $76. This puts them on par with Intel’s Pentium E6000 series dual core processors, but cheaper than the Core 2 Duo E7500. This has been AMD’s high end dual core strategy for the Phenom’s life: sell three cores for the price of two. And in the past, it has worked.
| Processor | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | L3 Cache | TDP | Price |
| AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE | 3.4GHz | 2MB | 6MB | 140W | $245 |
| AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | 3.2GHz | 2MB | 6MB | 125W | $245 |
| AMD Phenom II X4 945 | 3.0GHz | 2MB | 6MB | 125W | $225 |
| AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE | 2.8GHz | 1.5MB | 6MB | 95W | $145 |
| AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE | 3.1GHz | 1MB | 6MB | 80W | $105 |
| AMD Athlon II X4 630 | 2.8GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 95W | $122 |
| AMD Athlon II X4 620 | 2.6GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 95W | $99 |
| AMD Athlon II X3 435 | 2.9GHz | 1.5MB | 0MB | 95W | $87 |
| AMD Athlon II X3 425 | 2.7GHz | 1.5MB | 0MB | 95W | $76 |
| AMD Athlon II X2 250 | 3.0GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 65W | $87 |
| AMD Athlon II X2 245 | 2.9GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 65W | $66 |
| AMD Athlon II X2 240 | 2.8GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 65W | $60 |
The X3s AMD is announcing today are clocked high enough that you still have good performance in single threaded applications, and in those that can take advantage of three cores you’re almost guaranteed to have better performance than the Intel alternative.
The real question you have to ask is whether it makes more sense to spend a little more than get a quad-core processor or not.
The Athlon II X3s are 45nm 95W TDP parts and work in both Socket-AM2+ and Socket-AM3 motherboards. As I mentioned before, these are architecturally identical to the X4s just with one core disabled. That means you get a 512KB L2 per core but no L3 cache.
I’ll spoil the surprise for you here: they’re faster than the equivalently priced Intel CPUs in most cases, but that’s not too surprising.
The Athlon II X3 435 is a bit more overclockable than the X4 620. Without any additional voltage we got 3.25GHz on our 620 sample, but our 435 yielded 3.33GHz:
With an extra ~15% voltage we could get 3.63GHz:
AMD is also introducing a slew of energy efficient Athlon IIs as well. They’re all in the table below:
| Processor | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | TDP | Price | Premium |
| AMD Athlon II X4 605e | 2.3GHz | 2MB | 45W | $143 | +$44 |
| AMD Athlon II X4 600e | 2.2GHz | 2MB | 45W | $133 | +$34 |
| AMD Athlon II X3 405e | 2.3GHz | 1.5MB | 45W | $102 | +$26 |
| AMD Athlon II X3 400e | 2.2GHz | 1.5MB | 45W | $97 | +$21 |
| AMD Athlon II X2 240e | 2.8GHz | 2MB | 45W | $77 | +$17 |
| AMD Athlon II X2 235e | 2.7GHz | 2MB | 45W | $69 | +$9 |
These energy efficient processors are binned for lower voltages and thus have a 45W TDP. Unfortunately you do sacrifice clock speed in some cases as a result. There's also a hefty price premium, at the high end you lose clock speed and pay 44% more for a 45W TDP.
The Test
| Motherboard: | Intel DX58SO (Intel X58) Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48) Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-UD5P (AMD 790FX) |
| Chipset: | Intel X48 Intel X58 AMD 790FX |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel) AMD Catalyst 8.12 |
| Hard Disk: | Intel X25-M SSD (80GB) |
| Memory: | Qimonda DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) Corsair DDR3-1333 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) Patriot Viper DDR3-1333 2 x 2GB (7-7-7-20) |
| Video Card: | eVGA GeForce GTX 280 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64) NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32) |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1920 x 1200 |
| OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark) Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
blackbyron - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I am not talking about how good AMD is. I'm talking about business. Business is Business. Have you heard about Intel been fined for 1.45 billion dollars because of lawsuit? Intel does something illegal. If you don't believe and not satisfy what I said, google is your friend.Are you going get angry that Intel will start at $400 on quad core? Doesn't that make you worry?
qwertymac93 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
it seems a dual core is completely pointless when you can get a quad for a few $ more. any clock speed difference can be made up from overclocking, and power consumption isn't really that much higher. the dual core athlon seems to only have a place in notebooks, were a 10 watt increase can kill any demand for a product. in time the dual cores will fade out and only be seen in notebooks. with phenoms costing twice as much to make, i dont think they even make sense, why not make an 8-core athlon ll for the same die size?maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Only AMD worshiper will buy its products. AMD will never win the benchmark. Don't to become an AMD worshiper, get a life and buy Intel powered product.pullmyfoot - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
dude, shut up man. how old are you? 5?maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Are you mad? I belive currently you are using Intel based products, and further you will be using Intel products only because AMD will be no more in 2011.vexingv - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Anand's conclusion really sums it up. On the low end, AMD has got it locked. But AMD really has a busy product segment between the Athlon II X2, X3, and X4's. My quandary: I'm giving my current HTPC (AthlonX2 4200+) to my parents and was planning on replacing it with a new Athlon II setup. However, my main PC is an e7200. Now I don't know whether I should go low end (X2 240) for the HTPC or move up a bit (X3 435 or X4 620) and have my old E7200 be the basis of the HTPC and use the AMD system as my new main PC.decisions, decisions...
maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Whatever AMD product throws to market, rubbish is a rubbish. Intel products prices will make AMD's prices room tighter, and AMD is going to sink into oblivion. I love it because Intel prices will be cheaper to consumer.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...Thats a less expensive AMD CPU out preforming a more expensive Intel CPU
Suck on that a while.
Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
AMD has 13 Athlon IIs, 6 energy efficient, 7 normal CPUs, ranging from $60 to $143, with a quite a few overlapping processors. That's not even counting the Phenom IIs in that price range. Some of these might be OEM specific only, so that would simplify the lineup for the individual buyer. Even still, that's a lot of questions the buyer has to face? Faster dual core? Medium triple core? Slower quad core? Energy efficient/low heat? L3 cache?I guess one can say there's an Athlon II that will fits anyone's needs at this price range, but figuring out which is the harder part.
Ezz777 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
Or stretch your budget to whatever an i5 is going for and get the best of both worlds...I'm currently budgeting for a new PC, and i find it hard to justify this sort of price point for a CPU. I'm not strictly Intel/AMD aligned but i just feel the i5 seems to answer most of these questions.
So...I guess then my question is what sort of budget for a Entry / Mid gaming PC would justify these CPUs?
And secondly, is there a rule of thumb you all use for what proportion of a PC you should spend on the CPU (or GPU for that matter)?
Clearly this will change due to the various offerings, but would does 25% CPU, 50% GPU, 25% M/B etc. sound about right?