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
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.
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
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:
Even in our most heavily threaded game test, the X3 435 is a bit faster than the 620.
Crysis Warhead
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
tamalero - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
by any chance you're a Intel worker? you sound like you do.maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
Intel did not do that. All the given evidences are false and could not prove anything.taltamir - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link
"no competition to keep prices low"[sarcasm] Thats right, if only there was no COMPETITION prices could be LOW... it is a well known FACT that competition serves only to raise prices! [/sarcasm]
That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a very long time.
mm2587 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
wow. Way to fail at reading comprehension.The man is say if there was no competition there would be no reason to keep prices low. He was saying "if there was no competition to keep prices low, intel would raise prices"
So lets read next time before we call anyone else stupid.
silverblue - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link
Not quite... at least, not in my opinion.On page 6, maddoctor posted:
"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."
I may have misinterpreted this, but his post seems to be indicating that if AMD were no longer in the game, Intel would have no competition and would LOWER prices in accordance. Something which, as we all know, not only wouldn't happen but is totally contrary to common business practices. If there's only one supplier, you're not going to go find cheaper options from somebody else; you'll be tied to that one supplier and they will feel less need to improve their designs.
As odd as it may seem, that's what I believe he was referring to.
SunSamurai - Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - link
You do fail at reading comprehension.silverblue - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link
Interesting statement to make when you fail to back it up.