Fallout 3 Game Performance

Bethesda’s latest game uses an updated version of the Gamebryo engine (Oblivion). This benchmark takes place immediately outside Vault 101. The character walks away from the vault through the Springvale ruins. The benchmark is measured manually using FRAPS.

Fallout 3 - 1680 x 1050 - Medium Quality

Finally! We have a test where the Athlon II X3 435's clock speed gives it the advantage over the 620. If you're a gamer but want more cores, the 435 is a good balance of performance in existing games but better than dual-core performance in well threaded apps.

Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (No AA/AF/Vsync)

I've got no complaints about the X3's performance in Left 4 Dead either, it's nearly as fast as the more expensive Core 2 Duo E7500 (and with a much tastier upgrade path).

FarCry 2 Multithreaded Game Performance

FarCry 2 ships with the most impressive benchmark tool we’ve ever seen in a PC game. Part of this is due to the fact that Ubisoft actually tapped a number of hardware sites (AnandTech included) from around the world to aid in the planning for the benchmark.

For our purposes we ran the CPU benchmark included in the latest patch:

Far Cry 2 - 1680 x 1050 - Playback (Action Scene) - Medium Quality

Even in our most heavily threaded game test, the X3 435 is a bit faster than the 620.

Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead - 1680 x 1050 - Mainstream Quality (Physics on Enthusiast) - assault bench

Excel & Blu-ray/Flash Creation Performance Power Consumption
Comments Locked

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?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now