Athlon ii x4 processors. Numerical speed

Just a few years ago home computer with several central processors was considered an unaffordable luxury that only professionals could afford. Of course, this state of affairs was not accidental, because in those days only a small group of highly specialized software could use the full power of several processors. With the entry of multi-core CPUs into the market, things moved from a dead point. Gradually, “home” programs began to appear that were capable of working with several data streams simultaneously, thanks to which even ordinary users began to become interested in new solutions. Unfortunately, there was a “fly in the ointment” here too - the high price prevented the truly widespread use of high-tech new products. However, there are certain advances here too. Today AMD introduced two budget processors, each containing four cores - AMD Athlon II X4 620 and 630. Our review today is dedicated to the younger model - the AMD Athlon II X4 620, the recommended price of which is about $120.

Since the core itself is covered with a metal cover, it is not possible to see differences in the size of the crystal and the arrangement of elements on the substrate compared to other representatives of the Athlon II family. According to the manufacturer, the area of the Propus core, on the basis of which the new processor is built, is 169 mm 2 . Externally AMD processor The Athlon II X4 620, except for the markings, is no different from its analogues released in the Socket AM2+/AM3 design. The table below shows the characteristics of the AMD Athlon II X4 620 and 630 in comparison with another quad-core processor, the Phenom II X4 965:

The latest version of the CPU-Z information utility with serial number 1.52.2, although it shows us detailed information about the characteristics of the AMD Athlon II X4 620, does not display the official logo of this CPU. The main and, perhaps, the only difference from older AMD Phenom II X4 processors that can affect the performance of the new product is the lack of third-level cache.

Overclocking and testing conditions

Unfortunately, the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor has a locked multiplier, so maximum overclocking of these processors will largely depend on more factors than with AMD's Black Edition series processors, which are much easier to overclock. To successfully overclock AMD Athlon II X4 620 processors to high frequencies(3.6-4 GHz) it is necessary that motherboard could operate stably at clock generator frequencies of the order of 275-310 MHz, in addition, the RAM should not restrain the increase in bus frequency (provided that the processor itself and the cooling system used do not limit overclocking).

Of course, we decided to test the brand new Athlon II X4 620 for overclocking. The processor was overclocked using air cooling. After increasing the core voltage to 1.5 V, our AMD Athlon II X4 620 passed all tests at 3600 MHz without any problems. Before we move on to testing the performance of a newbie, let's take a look at the testing modes.

Test conditions

Since test configurations They differ only in the types of processors, motherboards and RAM sets; only these components are indicated in the table.

Testing the overclocked AMD Athlon II X4 620 with memory running at 923 MHz was due to the inability of our DDR-2 kit to consistently pass all tests at 1120 MHz DDR (this was the memory frequency that was available for installation next).

Testing

We already mentioned above that the only difference between the AMD Phenom II X4 and the AMD Athlon II X4 (besides the marking and frequency) is the absence of a third-level cache in the Athlon. To further verify this, we measured the cache latency of our test processors. In order to put the processors on an equal footing, we used a multiplier to lower the frequency of the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition to 2.6 GHz.

AMD Athlon II X4 620 cache latency @ 2.6 GHz

AMD Phenom II X4 965 cache latency @ 2.6 GHz

As you can see, at equal frequencies the latency of the first and second level caches of both processors is the same. Using the Everest 5.0 Ultimate test package, let's look at the efficiency of the built-in memory controller, as well as the speed of Everest's computing algorithms.

Thanks to the integrated dual-channel memory controller, AMD Athlon II and AMD Phenom II X4 processors show better memory results than the Core 2 Quad QX9650. However, in most cases they are inferior to Core i5 750 and Core i7 920 processors, the only exception being the memory subsystem latency test, where AMD solutions are ahead. As for the confrontation between the AMD Athlon II X4 620 and Phenom II X4 965, when operating at equal frequencies, the leader is the Athlon II X4 620, which only benefits from the absence of an L3 cache in this test.

The results of testing Everest computing algorithms show a slight lag between the AMD Athlon II X4 620 and the AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE when operating at equal frequencies. This suggests that not all algorithms benefit from the presence of a large amount of third-level cache. If we compare Intel solutions with the budget new product from AMD, the leadership of Core processors is beyond doubt. However, we should not forget about their cost, because both Core i5 and Core i7 are several times more expensive than the Athlon II X4 620.

Testing in applications and games

3DMark Vantage shows the AMD Athlon II X4 620 lagging behind the Phenom II X4 965 BE, operating at equal frequencies. This means that Vantage still responds to the lack of L3 cache memory in the Athlon II X4. As for comparing the Core i5 750 with the Athlon II X4 620, despite the equal clock speeds Core frequencies The i5 is significantly ahead.

The FarCry2 engine demonstrates a significant dependence of the results on the presence of L3 cache memory in AMD processors, since even after overclocking to 3.6 GHz, the AMD Athlon II X4 620 cannot catch up with its brother Phenom II X4 965 BE, operating at its nominal frequency.

In the Crysis CPU test, the gap between the AMD Phenom II X4 and the Athlon II X4 is clearly visible, which is significantly reduced after overclocking the Athlon II X4 620 to a frequency of 3.6 GHz. With the transition to a difficult, so to speak, “combat” testing mode, the gap between test participants becomes noticeably smaller. Despite the lag of the unoverclocked Athlon II X4 620 from all other participants in the test, the difference of 2-4 fps can hardly be considered critical.

The World in Conflict game is sensitive to the lack of L3 cache memory in the AMD Athlon II X4 620, which, coupled with the results obtained in other games, allows us to talk about the dependence of fps in games on the amount of L3 cache memory in AMD processors.

When encoding video, AMD Phenom II X4 and AMD Athlon II X4, operating at equal frequencies, show comparable results. x264 HD Benchmark responds more sensitively to increasing clock speeds than to the amount of cache memory. The overclocked AMD Athlon II X4 catches up with the AMD Phenom II X4 and is even ahead of not only the Core 2 Quad QX9650, but also the Core i5/i7, of course, operating at the nominal frequency!

Data archiving is best achieved by Intel processors, which outperform all representatives from the AMD camp. WinRAR is definitely partial to the additional cache capacity of the AMD Phenom II X4, which even at 2.6 GHz confidently outperforms the overclocked AMD Athlon II X4 620.

The wPrime test responds very well to increasing clock speeds. The Athlon II X4 620 overclocked to 3.6 GHz outperforms the Phenom II X4 965 BE, which operates at a nominal frequency of 3.4 GHz. This test is calm about the presence of an additional bonus such as L3 cache memory. Yes, there is a difference between the AMD Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X4, but it is more relevant for benchers than for ordinary users.

The chess algorithm, like wPrime, is slightly accelerated by the appearance of the L3 cache memory in the Phenom II X4 processor, since the difference with the equally frequency AMD Athlon II X4 is small. After overclocking, the AMD Athlon II X4 confidently outperforms not only the Core 2 Quad QX 9650, but also the Core i5 750 at nominal frequencies.

The results in Cinebench R10 x64 clearly show the difference in performance between the AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE and the AMD Athlon II X4 620 when running at equal frequencies. When rendering is performed by a single core, the Phenom's lead over the Athlon is not so noticeable, but when multi-threaded mode is activated, the Phenom II X4 is noticeably ahead of its budget brother. However, thanks to overclocking, the AMD Athlon II X4 shows a decent result in comparison not only with its older brother, but also with its competitor, the Core 2 Quad QX9650.

Conclusions

In our opinion, AMD's attempt to bring a budget processor with four cores to the market was a success. Of course, you shouldn’t expect incredible miracles from an inexpensive processor. In most applications, the new product is inferior to both the Core 2 Quad QX9650 and the Core i5 750, however, the situation can be easily corrected by overclocking. In other words, the AMD product will appeal to those who prefer to get performance from their CPU comparable to older CPU models for minimal money. Well, gentlemen overclockers, this processor is for you!

Flaws

Tested: this processor is not for professional video encoding and archiving, where a large amount of cache memory is important. But this is not even a drawback given the mass of its advantages for such money.Comment

Athlon II X4 deserves special attention and respect. For a low cost, you get a full-fledged quad-core processor that will work flawlessly in multi-threaded applications and outperform any dual-core processor, be it Intel Core 2 Duo, Athlon II X2 or Intel Core i3. Using this processor, I assembled a graphics station for a friend to work in PhotoShop CS4 and CorelDraw (HELLO PHOTOGRAPHERS). In heavy games it performs well at high FPS with a resolution of 1920x1080 (Crysis 3, Battlefield 3, Assassins Creed, etc.) in conjunction with video cards Radeon class HD 7850 and GeForce GTX660, revealing their potential. I quickly surf the Internet with a bunch of open tabs. So think about it, is it worth overpaying for more expensive multi-core processors for games and graphics applications?)

22 3

Price-performance ratio. Exceptional compatibility in all directions: from AM2 and AM2+ to AM3+. DDR2 and DDR3 support.Flaws

Comment

Although AM3 processors are gradually disappearing from sale due to the arrival of newer AM3+, I believe that AMD could squeeze a little more money out of this line. In the economy segment, AMD can spoil Intel very badly. It would be possible to crush Intel with quad-cores for 2400 rubles. They turned out to be very universal. And an old gaming computer can be refreshed, and a dull office computer can be given a second wind. This means that this is a massive sector of the user computer park. The user, without investing in a completely new platform, gets performance close to modern requirements for the mass market. Of course, AM3 doesn’t have enough stars from the sky (in the form in which it is presented today), but not everyone needs these same stars. After all, software manufacturers mainly focus on a certain “average computer”, which is a lethal average mixture of old and new platforms, with a predominance of old ones.
I don’t know how it is with tests and benchmarks, but in terms of operating comfort, installing this processor in an old mother (AM2+, for example), which can support it, gives a result comparable to the latest Core i3 and sometimes Core i5, not to mention the line of fresh AMD ( for a lot of money you buy almost the same thing).
This is a subjective assessment. But if you want to save money, but save as little as possible on performance, then AM3 processors in combination with AM3+ motherboards are your option. A four-core processor for an office computer is still not weak. There is also a ridiculous attitude towards games. Plus a promising upgrade opportunity (what if eight-core ones will also soon cost 2,400 rubles).
Intelo-fap Mazda lovers!

Complain Was the review helpful? 19 0

Flaws

Level 3 cache cannot be unlocked, it is simply missing, but for the money it is quite predictable.Comment

Excellent processor, easily overclocked to 3.5 GHz. After that, judging by the tests, it works at the level of processors whose price is 2 times higher. I use it together with the ZALMAN CNPS8900 Quiet cooler, bought here at Citylink, the temperature has never reached 50 degrees, and this is after overclocking. Considering all of the above, I advise you to take it.

IntroductionIt would seem that just recently the new AMD processors belonging to the Phenom II X4 series looked like very worthy offers for mid-price range systems. However, September brought significant changes to the state of affairs in the processor market. Company announcement Intel new The LGA1156 platform, equipped with very powerful Nehalem generation processors, seriously undermined AMD’s hopes of competing with Intel processors costing about several hundred dollars. As a result, everything has returned to normal: AMD is again forced to become just a manufacturer of inexpensive processors for cheap systems, just like a year or two ago.

However, this does not mean that AMD intends to abandon all attempts to increase its own market share. Moreover, it has at its disposal a modern 45-nm process, allowing the production of fairly good Phenom II and Athlon II processors. Therefore, the company is not going to give up without a fight and plans to continue competition with Intel, but in “lower” market segments, in which the microprocessor giant has not yet managed to introduce its promising processors using the Nehalem microarchitecture. Obviously, in this case, AMD will resort to its favorite tactic - manipulating prices in such a way that its processors become more profitable than offers competitor in terms of cost and performance. And today we see another example of such a price battle: AMD is introducing the cheapest 45-nm quad-core processors, the official cost of which will be only $100-120. AMD's calculation is very simple: in this price category, Intel only offers dual-core models, while many users of inexpensive systems are experiencing an increasing need to switch to quad-core ones. This need is fueled not only by the growing number of software capable of efficiently using multi-core processors, but also by the upcoming release of the operating system Windows systems 7, optimized for efficient operation in systems that have the resources to simultaneously execute multiple computational threads. In other words, AMD is trying to create a hit offering with the rather meager means at its disposal: 45 nm cores with the rapidly aging K10 microarchitecture.

It should be understood that the processors of the Phenom II X4 family offered so far are unlikely to be good candidates for the role of cheap quad-core processors. The fact is that the core area of these models is close to the core area of Core i7 processors, which means that the production cost of Phenom II is too high for them to actively move to the lower part of the market. Therefore, to produce cheap quad-core processors, AMD created a new semiconductor core, codenamed Propus. Its differences from the usual Deneb core used at the heart of the Phenom II X4 are quite predictable: in the new core, AMD has eliminated a fairly large third-level cache, and this should allow the company to significantly reduce the cost of its quad-core offerings. AMD intends to sell such cheaper processors with the Propus core as part of a separate series, which will be called Athlon II X4.

In conversations with company representatives, we learned that AMD has very high hopes for the Athlon II X4. Marketers expect that this processor will be able to repeat the success of the legendary Core 2 Quad Q6600. Perhaps this is so, but we should not forget that the quad-core processors of the previous generation, the Phenom X4 9000, which AMD also sold at very affordable prices, did not cause a sensation among buyers. But that was a year ago: now the situation is different, and the new Athlon II X4 is far from the same as the old Phenom X4. The use of 45 nm cores makes them not so “hot” and allows you to set fairly high clock speeds. However, doesn't eliminating the L3 cache lead to a fatal drop in performance? It is this question that will become the main topic of our article today.

Details about Athlon II X4

All AMD processors, which have four computing cores, were previously always produced within the Phenom and Phenom II families. Moreover, the Phenom trademark was also used to designate some tri-core and dual-core processors. All this led to the fact that the name Athlon became a symbol of budget processors. Obviously, by releasing the Athlon II X4, AMD is appealing to precisely these associations: the Athlon II X4 series processors should become the most affordable quad-core processors on the market, costing about $100-120.

As a result, the complete structure of AMD's offerings in the near future will look like this.

Please note that while 45nm AMD processors use different names, the model numbering is continuous. Thus, the quad-core Athlon II X4 processors belong to the 600 series, while the Phenom II X4 processors are numbered in the 800 and 900 series.

Despite the fact that Athlon II X4 processors are one and a half to two times cheaper than Phenom II X4, they do not have any fundamental microarchitectural differences. In fact, the Athlon II X4 is the same as the Phenom II X4, but without the shared 6 MB L3 cache and with slightly lower clock speeds. However, it is precisely the elimination of the L3 cache that seems not so significant for performance that turns out to be a very profitable step for AMD in terms of production costs. The fact is that the third level cache in Phenom II X4 processors occupies a third of the area of the entire processor core. Therefore, the physical elimination of the L3 cache from a semiconductor chip can significantly reduce production costs and, as a result, lower prices for retail products.

To illustrate these facts, we provide a table containing the main characteristics of quad-core processors produced by AMD. For clarity, this table also contains old first-generation quad-core processors based on 65 nm cores.

As you can see, AMD managed to reduce the die area of the Athlon II X4 processors to 169 square meters. mm. And this is a very good result, allowing the company to get involved in a price war with Intel without any reservations. After all, the younger quad-core Intel processors belonging to the Core 2 Quad Q8000 series consist of two crystals with an area of 82 square meters. mm. Consequently, the production cost of the Athlon II X4 is very close to the cost of the Core 2 Quad Q8000, which opens up wide opportunities for AMD to manipulate prices.

At the same time, AMD did not devote engineering resources to redesigning the core. The formula “Athlon II X4 is equal to Phenom II X4 minus L3 cache” is true not only in relation to the characteristics, it can also be traced at the core design level. The photo of the semiconductor crystal clearly shows that in Propus the part of the core with the third-level cache is simply “cut off”.

Left - Phenom II X4 (Deneb), right - Athlon II X4 (Propus)

From the above, it is absolutely clear that the Athlon II X4 processors do not contain any undocumented capabilities for activating the L3 cache, which some enthusiasts were gradually hoping for. There is simply no cache, so from Athlon II X4 get Phenom II X4 general case it won't work.

However, there are some exceptions. As AMD told us, certain batches of Athlon II X4 processors will be based on the Deneb core with the L3 cache disabled, so with some luck, converting the Athlon II X4 to the Phenom II X4 will still be possible. It is obvious that after the demise of the Phenom II X4 800 series, AMD still retains ways to sell partially defective semiconductor crystals generated during the production of older models. And the Athlon II X4 series will be just such a loophole.

The Athlon II X4 processor lineup will include two representatives, numbered 620 and 630. The clock frequencies of the processors will be 2.6 and 2.8 GHz, respectively, their more detailed specifications are as follows:

AMD also plans to release other models in the Athlon II X4 series. Over the coming quarters, the frequency of older processors in this series will reach 3.0 GHz, and economical modifications of such processors with a typical design heat dissipation of 45 W will also be released.

To conclude our introduction to the Athlon II X4 processors, we present traditional CPU-Z screenshots confirming the characteristics of these processors.

Please note that the CPUID of the new processors has the previously unused number 00100F52h, which emphasizes the uniqueness of the core of these models and the absence of third-level cache memory in them. In potentially “lucky” Athlon II X4, based on defective Deneb cores, the model number should be equal to 4, it is this feature that will distinguish them from their counterparts based on “honest” Propus semiconductor crystals.

Description of test systems

The positioning of the new Athlon II X4 processors is such that they currently have no direct competitors. AMD itself says that the Athlon II X4 should be considered as an alternative to the cheapest quad-core processors Intel series Core 2 Quad Q8000, or as a competitor to the dual-core Core 2 Duo E7000. However, Intel quad-core processors have a higher price, and comparing dual-core processors with quad-core processors is not entirely correct. However, in the absence of other options, the new Athlon II X4 was compared primarily with these Intel products. In addition, dual-core, triple-core and quad-core AMD processors, sold at prices comparable to the Athlon II X4, took part in the tests.

As a result, the list of software and hardware components that took part in testing is as follows:

Processors:

AMD Phenom II X4 925 (Deneb, 2.8 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2, 6 MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X3 720 (Heka, 2.8 GHz, 3 x 512 KB L2, 6 MB L3);
AMD Phenom II X2 550 (Callisto, 3.1 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2, 6 MB L3);
AMD Phenom X4 9750 (Agena, 2.4 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2, 2 MB L3);
AMD Athlon II X4 630 (Propus, 2.8 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2);
AMD Athlon II X4 620 (Propus, 2.6 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2);
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 (Yorkfield, 2.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 2 + 2 MB L2);
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 (Wolfdale, 2.93 GHz, 1067 MHz FSB, 3 MB L2).

Motherboards:

ASUS P5Q Pro (LGA775, Intel P45 Express, DDR2 SDRAM);
Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H (Socket AM2+, AMD 790GX + SB750, DDR2 SDRAM).

Memory: 2 x 2 GB DDR2-800, 5-5-5-15 (GEIL GX24GB8500C5UDC).
Graphics card: ATI Radeon HD 4890.
Hard drive: Western Digital Velociraptor WD3000HLFS.
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64 RTM.
Drivers:

Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility 9.1.1.1015;
ATI Catalyst 9.8 Display Driver.

The core is a third smaller, and the performance is 10% smaller?

First of all, we decided to ask ourselves how important the third level cache is for processors with the K10 (Stars) microarchitecture. After all, the answer to this question will decide the market fate of the Athlon II X4. On the one hand, using the example of Athlon II X2 processors, we saw that the absence of cache memory shared between the cores does not lead to a catastrophic drop in performance. But on the other hand, it is the shared L3 cache that allows minimizing delays in data exchange between cores, and perhaps its absence in new quad-core processors will greatly affect their attractiveness. In addition, in the Athlon II X2, the elimination of the third level cache was partially compensated by an increase in the L2 cache. In the case of the Athlon II X4, nothing like this is observed, just as in the Phenom II X4, their L2 cache has a capacity of 512 KB per core.

To immediately dispel all doubts, we decided to conduct a small test of several quad-core processors with the Stars (K10) microarchitecture and the same clock frequency, but equipped with third-level cache memory of varying sizes. Carriers of the following cores took part in this test:

Deneb with 6 MB L3 cache. The classic variant underlying the Phenom II X4 900 series processors;
Deneb with 4 MB L3 cache. Such processors were produced some time ago in the Phenom II X4 800 series, but have now been discontinued;
Agena with 2 MB L3 cache. This old 65-nm core was used in the Phenom X4 9000 processors. In addition to a smaller cache, it also has a number of microarchitectural differences from modern cores produced using the 45-nm process technology;
Propus, lacking L3 cache. This is precisely the new Athlon II X4 600 processors.

All four processors that took part in testing ran at the same clock speed of 2.8 GHz.

In general, we can say that the L3 cache can affect the performance of a quad-core processor with the K10 (Stars) microarchitecture quite seriously. On average, the performance of the Phenom II X4 with a 6-MB L3 cache and the Athlon II X4 without L3 cache differs by 10% at the same clock speed. However, as always, in some applications the cache is not so important, while in other applications its importance is difficult to overestimate. For example, when final rendering or transcoding audio and video content, the Athlon II X4 is capable of working at almost the same speed as the Phenom II X4 of equal frequency. However, for example, we would recommend that gamers still choose processors with L3 cache - they are capable of providing a much higher number of frames per second. Moreover, in gaming applications, the Athlon II X4 shows even lower speed than the old-generation Phenom X4, despite all the microarchitectural improvements made in the 45-nm core, including an improved branch prediction unit and reduced cache latency.

However, no one suggests considering the Athlon II X4 as an alternative to the Phenom II X4, which are more high class. Taking into account the fact that Propus processors, compared to Deneb, not only have a third smaller semiconductor chip area, but also cost significantly less, it is quite possible to forgive the existing lag in performance. Especially if you hope that they will accelerate no worse than their older brothers. However, let's not get ahead of ourselves, but rather let's see how the Athlon II X4 compares to other processors in the same price category.

Performance

Overall Performance

If you believe the results obtained in the SYSmark 2007 test, which evaluates system performance in real conditions when solving specific problems, it turns out that the senior model in the new Athlon II X4 family is capable of providing approximately the same level of performance as the junior processor with four cores from Intel , Core 2 Quad Q8200. This is a pretty good result, since AMD is going to sell its Athlon II X4 at lower prices than Intel is currently selling its Q8200. However, one should not put a sign of identical equality between these processors, since they behave somewhat differently in different tasks. For example, when rendering and processing video content, the AMD processor can show higher performance, while when working with office applications and applications for creating and processing two-dimensional raster and vector graphics, the Core 2 Duo demonstrates better results.

By the way, it is in office tasks The lack of cache memory in the Athlon II X4 is most pronounced. In such tasks, these processors are inferior even to the previous generation Phenom X4, which operate at significantly lower clock speeds.

In addition, you should understand that quad-core processors are not always better than their counterparts with fewer cores. After all, dual-core and triple-core models in the same price category have a higher clock frequency, and this allows them to work faster with poorly parallelized loads. For example, quite often the leading position in SYSmark 2007 is held by the dual-core Core 2 Duo E7500.

Gaming Performance

As we know, the volume and speed of the memory subsystem are very important for modern 3D games. Therefore, the results obtained are not surprising: Athlon II X4 is much inferior to its older brothers from the Phenom II X4 family, which is naturally due to the lack of third-level cache memory. As a result, even the top model Athlon II X4 630 is somewhat behind the junior processor in the Core 2 Quad series.

By the way, based on the results obtained, one more interesting conclusion can be drawn. Although modern gaming applications are being optimized for multi-core processors better and better, the most effective solution in the tests performed is not the quad-core, but the triple-core Phenom II X3 processor, which is significantly ahead of the main characters of today's review.

Audio and video encoding performance

Transcoding any media content is the specialty of the new inexpensive quad-core processors offered by AMD. Actually, there is nothing strange about this. In such tasks, the entire load falls on the system's computing resources, while the speed of the memory subsystem fades into the background. As a result, when using popular video codecs, the Core 2 Quad outperforms even the Athlon II X4 620, not to mention the older model. The situation looks somewhat different when working with iTunes, but this is most likely explained by the features of this program, which transcodes audio files into only two streams.

Application testing

When archiving data, the Athlon II X4 lags behind the Core 2 Quad Q8200 by 10%, showing almost the worst result among all test participants, with the exception of the dual-core Core 2 Duo E7500.

When performing calculations in Excel, the situation looks even worse. In this highly multi-threaded application, the Athlon II X4 processors are only able to compete with Intel's dual-core competitors. If we compare the performance of the Athlon II X4 with the performance of other AMD processors, the speed of these quad-core processors without L3 cache turns out to be close to the speed of tri-core models from the Phenom II X3 family, equipped with a third-level cache.

Approximate parity between Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X3 can also be observed in Adobe Photoshop CS4. But at the same time, the Athlon II X4 is again significantly inferior to competing Intel processors: both quad-core and dual-core.

But with non-linear video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro CS4, the new Athlon II X4 series demonstrates excellent performance, as well as with simple video transcoding.

The new “cut down” processors also perform well in final rendering. Actually, this is not surprising; this is also a computational task that does not impose any special requirements on the memory subsystem.

Energy consumption

Although AMD switched to the modern 45nm process technology when producing the Phenom II X4 series, the energy characteristics of these processors were never able to reach the level offered by Intel processors of similar performance. However, it is too early to draw final conclusions, since the Athlon II X4 processors being studied today are carriers of a new core with a reduced area, which can have a positive effect on their heat dissipation and power consumption.

That is why we approached testing the power consumption of AMD's new products with particular interest. The figures below represent the total power consumption of the test platforms assembled (without monitor) “from the wall outlet”. During measurements, the load on the processors was created by the 64-bit version of the LinX 0.6.3 utility. In addition, to correctly assess idle power consumption, we activated all available energy-saving technologies: C1E, Cool"n"Quiet 3.0 and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep.

Unfortunately, like other AMD 45nm processors, the Athlon II X4 cannot compete with Intel processors of similar price and performance even at rest. However, the difference in the energy consumption of various systems in idle state does not seem so significant as to draw any sharp conclusions based on it.

Under load, the situation looks much worse for AMD. When we looked at the Core 2 Quad Q8000 series processors at one time, we were surprised by their efficiency. Not much has changed since then; AMD with its Phenom II X4 and Athlon II X4 cannot even come close to similar power consumption figures. Despite the fact that, as practice shows, Propus processors are much more economical than their Deneb predecessors, the difference in consumption of systems based on the Athlon II X4 630 and Core 2 Quad Q8200 reaches almost 50 W!

To obtain a more complete and comprehensive picture, a separate study of the power consumption of Athlon II X4 processors under load, in isolation from other computer components, was carried out. More precisely, the measurement was carried out on the consumption of a 12-volt power line connected directly to the processor voltage converter on the motherboard, that is, the technique did not take into account the efficiency of the voltage converter circuit.

The obtained figures once again confirm all of the above. If you are concerned about system power consumption, then AMD processors that are not energy efficient should be discarded right away. Despite the fact that the Athlon II X4 formally has the same 95-watt thermal package as the Core 2 Quad Q8200, in reality these processors are incomparable in terms of real power consumption. AMD's offerings consume almost twice as much, but unfortunately do not provide the same performance superiority. Accordingly, the Athlon II X4, like the Phenom II X4, is hopelessly inferior to competing products in terms of performance per watt.

Overclocking

AMD processors built on 45nm cores typically allow air-cooled overclocking to 3.7-3.9 GHz. Moreover, this applies to both processors with four cores and dual-core and triple-core representatives of the Phenom II family. Logically, new products belonging to the Athlon II X4 series should demonstrate approximately the same overclocking results. However, hope for a miracle always remains, and in in this case it is further fueled by the fact that the Athlon II X4 is based on a new simplified semiconductor core, devoid of L3 cache. That’s why we didn’t give up on overclocking experiments this time either.

The experiments were carried out in the same test system, as performance research. It is only necessary to add that to cool the processor, we chose a Scythe Mugen cooler with a Noctua NF-P12 fan installed on it.

Due to the fact that both Athlon II X4 processors announced today do not belong to class Black Edition, overclocking them by changing the multiplier is impossible. To increase the clock frequency above standard values, an increase in the frequency of the base clock generator is required. However, this does not cause any problems: the new processors work great with a very significant increase in the clock generator frequency.

So, for example, with an increase in the supply voltage to the processor core by 0.175 V above the nominal, we were able to overclock the Athlon II X4 630 to 3.64 GHz by simply increasing the clock generator frequency to 260 MHz.

Unfortunately, stronger overclocking of the Athlon II X4 630 turned out to be impossible; the processor lost the ability to operate stable. This suggests that the frequency potential of the cut-down Propus core for some reason turned out to be somewhat worse than the frequency potential of the Deneb core, equipped with a third-level cache.

The results of overclocking the Athlon II X4 620, unfortunately, only confirmed our fears. This processor was generally only overclocked to 3.57 GHz to achieve stability at which we had to increase the processor supply voltage by 0.15 V above the nominal value.

To get a complete picture of the capabilities of overclocked Athlon II X4 processors, we decided to test their performance and compare it with the performance of overclocked Core 2 Quad Q8200. For this test, the Core 2 Quad processor frequency was increased to a fairly typical 3.4 GHz, resulting in 7 x 486 MHz. This processor was up against the Athlon II X4 630, running at 3.64 GHz, set to 14 x 260 MHz. Other system parameters are given in the table below.

As you can see, when overclocked, the Intel processor was able to demonstrate a more confident superiority over the Athlon II X4 than when operating in normal mode. This is not surprising. The frequency of the Core 2 Quad Q8200 used in the tests during overclocking was increased by 45% above the nominal value, which, by the way, is far from the limit for this modification of the processor. The Athlon II X4 was only able to accelerate by 30% with a squeak. In other words, the overclocking potential of the Athlon II X4 processors, although not as poor as that of the old Phenom X4, which uses a 65-nm core, is still worse than that of the Phenom II X4 and, as a result, clearly leaves much to be desired.

Conclusions

Of course, the main advantage of the new Athlon II X4 processors is their low price. With AMD pricing them in the $100 to $120 range, these processors seem like very attractive deals. After all, they are, indeed, the cheapest quad-core processors on the market, based on cores produced using modern technological processes. And this is already quite enough for the Athlon II X4 to gain quite good market positions.

However, low price is not the only strong point of AMD's new offerings. Together with it, these processors have a good level of performance, allowing them in a number of applications to perform on an equal footing with younger quad-core processors from Intel, which have a slightly higher cost. Tasks that the Athlon II X4 copes with particularly well include video processing and rendering.

But, unfortunately, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the lack of third-level cache memory in these processors in a number of applications still severely limits their performance. Working in office applications, image processing and 3D games are typical examples of those tasks in which the Athlon II X4 looks much weaker than its counterparts in the Phenom II X4 series. And it is in programs of this type that the new processors are inferior to the younger processors of the Core 2 Quad family. Is it compensated low performance Athlon II X4 in the listed cases, their low price is a question that everyone must decide for themselves, based on their own needs.

In our opinion, the ratio of weighted average performance to cost in the current market situation for new processors is quite adequate. And in general, Athlon II X4 could be considered, even if only a small, but important achievement of AMD in the competitive war, if not for one “but”. A significant drawback of the new processors is that, compared to competing offers, they have too high power consumption, and in addition, they have slightly worse overclocking potential. Therefore, based on a combination of factors, the Athlon II X4 does not look like any particular success for AMD. However, we will not deny the fact that, due to its price, this quad-core processor will be of interest to a certain group of consumers in any case.

To sum up what has been said, all that remains is to note that in the current conditions, AMD has chosen the right vector of development. So far, AMD does not have a new microarchitecture at its disposal that can compete with Nehalem processors, the only possible option rivalry with Intel sees the outbreak of local price wars in the lower segments of the market. The Athlon II X4 meets this goal perfectly. The new Propus core, designed specifically for use at the heart of such processors, due to the abandonment of the shared third-level cache, has a significantly lower cost than Deneb. This means that, using the potential of this core, AMD has every opportunity to further expand its lines of inexpensive multi-core processors, the demand for which will obviously only increase.

Check availability and cost of Athlon II X4 processors

Price in Russia

Want to buy Athlon II X4 640 cheap? Look at the list of stores that already sell the processor in your city.

Family

Show

AMD Athlon II X4 640 test

The data comes from user tests who tested their systems both overclocked and unoverclocked. Thus, you see the average values corresponding to the processor.

Numerical speed

Different tasks require different strengths CPU. A system with a small number of fast cores is perfect for games, but will be inferior to a system with a large number slow cores in the rendering script.

We believe that for the budget gaming computer A processor with at least 4 cores/4 threads is suitable. At the same time individual games can load it 100% and slow it down, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

Ideally, the buyer should aim for a minimum of 6/6 or 6/12, but keep in mind that systems with more than 16 threads are currently only suitable for professional applications.

The data comes from tests of users who tested their systems as overclocked ( maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, with the color bar indicating its position among all systems tested.

Accessories

We have compiled a list of components that users most often choose when assembling a computer based on the Athlon II X4 640. Also, with these components the best test results and stable operation are achieved.

The most popular config: motherboard for AMD Athlon II X4 640 - Gigabyte GA-F2A68HM-S1, video card - Asus RX Vega 64 8GB ROG Strix Gaming.

The AMD AthlonIIX4 635 processor solution was first introduced in January 2011. The manufacturer positioned this product as a middle-class solution with a good performance margin and a fairly affordable price. Next, we will talk about the hardware specifications of the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor, its capabilities and other important features associated with this chip.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: positioning

AMD's main processor socket in 2011 was SocketAM3. The hero of this review was intended for installation in it. Multiprocessors of this socket were divided as follows:

— Office PCs were based on Septron series processors. The devices had only one computing core, a minimum cache size and low frequencies. They were great for everyday office work, but it was impossible to expect anything more from them. The cost of the devices in this case was quite low. This feature made such computing systems accessible.

— Basic gaming systems were based on Athlon II X2 & Athlon II X3 series chips. In this case, the number of computational units was increased to 2 and 3, respectively. The size of the cache memory also increased. Clock speeds have also increased significantly. The result was that such semiconductor solutions could provide more high level speed and made it possible to solve almost any problem. It is worth noting that some computer games on such systems did not run at maximum settings.

— Advanced gaming systems were necessarily based on processors of the Athlon II X4 family. In this case, the number of cores increased to four. The clock speeds were also large values and the cache size increased. All this made it possible for the owners of such personal computers to solve any problems, completely regardless of the software requirements for hardware.

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor belonged to last class semiconductor solutions. Premium system units, as a rule, were assembled based on microprocessor solutions of the Phenom II family. In this case key difference from all previous AMD products was the cache organization. Previous processor solutions had only 2 levels fast memory. In this case, a third level appeared. Thanks to its presence, an impressive increase in performance levels has become possible. The frequency of the silicon solution has also increased significantly.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: configuration types

Existed for a configuration option for the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor solution. The first was designated Trail. This type of configuration included the following components:

— the chip itself is in a rigid plastic package;

— warranty card;

— quick guide on use and installation;

— branded sticker with the name of the family of central processing devices;

This configuration option was mainly aimed at large assemblers of system units, who used specialized systems cooling.

The second configuration option for the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor solution is called BOX. In addition to everything listed previously, this configuration option was supplemented with the following components:

— branded cooler from AMD;

- thermal paste.

A central processing unit in this design was aimed at the segment of small computer assemblers who could not afford to purchase a special, expensive cooling system. Experience shows that the capabilities of a standard cooler are quite sufficient to ensure normal and stable operation of this semiconductor solution.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: socket types

As previously noted, the main processor socket for this chip was Socket AM3. This is what this processor was designed for. However, AM2, AM2+ and AM3+ were also physically compatible with this computing platform. The RAM controller integrated into the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor was designed to work with DDR3 memory modules. Since AM2 only supported DDR2, the semiconductor product reviewed in this material, although it could be installed in such a slot, it could not work in combination with it due to the incompatibility of the RAM with the controller integrated into the central processing unit. The AM2+ platform was a hybrid platform and made it possible to install DDR2 and DDR3. If the motherboard used the latest type of RAM, then the hero of our today's review could successfully function with it. But this microprocessor could be installed in boards with an AM3+ connector. It will work as part of such a system only for the simple reason that it uses DDR3 strips. Therefore, this chip can be installed in one of three processor sockets AMD companies: AM2+,AM3, AM3+.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: technological process, thermal aspects, frequencies

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor was produced according to technological standards corresponding to 45 nm. The processor had an area of only 169 mm 2. This chip has a clock frequency of 2.9 GHz. The maximum temperature value for this device was recorded at 71 degrees. In practice, this parameter is usually in the range from 50 to 62 degrees. The power of this semiconductor solution was only 95 W.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: cache, RAM subsystem

As mentioned earlier, the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor had two levels of fast memory. The volume of the first level was a total of 512 KB, which were physically divided into 4 equal parts of 128 KB each. Each of the 128 KB was tied to a specific kernel. They could only store information that was processed by this computing module. 128 KB in turn were divided into two equal parts of 64 KB each. The first 64 KB contained only chip instructions, and the second - data. At the second level, the total cache size was already 2 MB. They were also divided into 4 equal parts of 512 KB each, each of which was assigned to a separate core. In this case there was no strict separation for storing data and instructions. The address space was shared. The RAM controller integrated into the semiconductor chip of the processor device was dual-channel. The optimal type of RAM for it was DDR3-1333.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: CPU architecture

A review of the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor indicates that its compute modules were based on the Propus architecture. In this case, the number of cores was 4, and the number of cache levels was limited to two. This maximum possibilities silicon crystal. It was impossible to somehow improve its characteristics by unlocking additional elements.

Overclocking AMD Athlon II X4 635

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 multiplier was fixed at 14.5. Its overclocking was possible only by the system bus frequency. Its standard value in this case was 200 MHz. In this case, it was also possible to obtain an additional performance boost by increasing the voltage on the processor core. The procedure for overclocking such processors is usually as follows:

— in the BIOS or in special software we lower the frequencies of all components;

— after that we gradually increase the bus frequency motherboard;

— after each increment, we check the frequencies of the components of the personal computer: they should not exceed the values that were before overclocking;

— if somewhere the frequencies go beyond the permissible limits, then it is necessary to lower the frequency of the system board bus;

- reboot personal computer and check the stability of operation;

- as soon as the maximum frequency value is reached, and the PC stops working stably, you can begin to increase the voltage. At the same time, it is necessary to try to increase the frequency of the microprocessor;

- after the combination of increasing voltage and frequency ceases to produce results, and the system cannot start stably, it is necessary to restore the previous values of frequency and voltage. The processor overclocking limit has been reached.

Practice shows that from the standard values of 1.1 V and 2900 MHz, this processor can be overclocked to 1.425 V and 3828 MHz. This allows you to get a percentage increase of 32% to the performance level.

AMD Athlon II X4 635: chip cost, capabilities, user reviews

The AMD Athlon II X4 635 microprocessor at the start of sales was priced at $110. Today such a chip can be purchased on the Internet at a price of 2000-2500 rubles. In their reviews, users characterize the AMD Athlon II X4 635 processor only with positive side. The AMD Athlon II X4 635 continues to be a relevant product even today and allows you to run most computer games. Thanks to the presence of real four computing modules, this chip can pass restrictions that are implemented in some of them at the program code level. Excellent overclocking potential allows this processor outperform even modern processor solutions.

Conclusion

In 2011, in the segment of mid-range devices, the hero of this review was one of the best and most affordable chips. Although the AMD Athlon II X4 635 was released quite a long time ago by the standards of the computer world, it continues to remain relevant and demonstrate a completely acceptable level of performance.

Athlon ii x4 processors. Numerical speed

Overclocking and testing conditions

Test conditions

Testing

Testing in applications and games

Conclusions

Details about Athlon II X4

Description of test systems

The core is a third smaller, and the performance is 10% smaller?

Performance

Energy consumption

Overclocking

Conclusions

Other materials on this topic

Price in Russia

Family

AMD Athlon II X4 640 test

Numerical speed

Accessories