Athlon II X3 435: AMD's Three-Core, 2.9 GHz, $87 Triple-Threat

Status
Not open for further replies.

ominous prime

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2009
406
0
18,790
3
AMD is really thriving in the budget sector, I wonder how the i3's will affect the market. I hope AMD can get back to head to head with Intel on the high end though.
 

rdawise

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2008
225
0
18,680
0
Smart move by AMD by attacking the budget crowd (especially around the holiday season). I am surprised how well this thing did against the X2 550! Seems like a good candidate for a budget gaming/multipurpose build. Any release dates available (for NewEgg)?
 

tacoslave

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2009
704
0
18,980
0
this is awesome but (and its a big one) i kinda wanted to see something that pwns intels core i7 in everything. Kind of like what they are doing in the graphics department but total domination. How long will i wait!!!
 

JonathanDeane

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2006
1,469
0
19,310
6
3 cores at almost 3Ghz for this cheap? Hmmm not a huge AMD fan but this is plenty of CPU for most people. I would snap one up if I was building a system right now.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]lemonade4[/nom]http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/H/2 [...] 0Stock.jpg2 cores 2 threads?[/citation]

Aha! Thanks for catching that. After I had done the testing I was playing around with disabling CPU cores in the OS, and I forgot to turn them back on to take the screenshot. Fixed!
 

mitch074

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2006
2,044
48
19,840
22
The RAR and 7z archive formats make use of a large size 'dictionary': a small store of patterns that, when used on a solid archive, can help achieve very high compression ratios. If this dictionary can be made to fit in fast memory (ie. cache), then comparing its patterns to currently compressed data can yield tremendous speed improvements:
- the dictionary doesn't have to be called from RAM on every new data page, which frees memory bandwidth
- when the dictionary is half the size of cache, then uncompressed data can fit in cache too, thus actual compression doesn't need 'paging' from memory.

As an example, the PKZIP algorithm (used in .zip files) has a fixed dictionary size of 64 kb; .zip can't handle solid file compression either (the same algorithm can be found in gzip, but when used with the tar archiver, can in essence achieve solid file archiving, which can yield non negligible compression improvements).

In 7-zip, when creating the archive, try setting up the dictionary at a size lower than half the biggest consolidated cache the least gifted CPU has, and compare again: performance will in fact be rather close. However, if you go over the cache's size, performance plummets.

About AVG appreciating core counts better than CPU speed: this could be explained by how I/O intensive a virus scan is; and since Vista sucks at I/O, what's left to compare are how many file handles can be opened and used simultaneously. A test that could be done:
- Install AVG on Vista, XP and Linux
- Run a scan on the same file set (be mindful though that the Linux file set should be put on an ext3 filesystem, NTFS access still being rather CPU intensive on Linux)
- see if there are differences.
 

cyberkuberiah

Distinguished
May 5, 2009
812
0
19,010
12
kudos to amd for launching budget options ... look at core lga775 prices they havent moved as expected even with lynnfield ... htpcs are going to benefit especially with the low power options ... 3 cores great for encoding and bluray playback etc ...
 

virtualban

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2007
1,232
0
19,280
0
And I thought I would wait till new year for an extra build for my household. Great AMD!
I really hope they get their act together and hit Intel hard on their flagships just as they did with Nvidia.
 

zinabas

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
56
0
18,630
0
"We will also be simulating an Athlon II X3 720 with a Phenom II X4 965 by lowering the CPU multiplier and disabling the forth CPU core"
 

zinabas

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
56
0
18,630
0
"We will also be simulating an Athlon II X3 720 with a Phenom II X4 965 by lowering the CPU multiplier and disabling the forth CPU core" Close but not quite, heads up.

Nice article by the way and I haven't even gotten to the benchmarks.
 

grimjester

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2009
24
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]cyberkuberiah[/nom]look at core lga775 prices they havent moved as expected even with lynnfield[/citation]

Especially as i3 is scheduled for next year. I don't understand why Intel doesn't lower prices. It also seems the X3 435 is underpriced compared to the other processors. A small drop in prices across the board is probably coming.

Price differences of $10 don't excite me very much. AMD seems to crowd the low end market. Intel owns the $200+ market, since AMD has nothing that can compete with Nehalem before 2011. The current situation adds up to a complete lack of competition between manufacturers - the only products competing at similar price levels are AMD processors with different core counts and cache. This is not good for consumers.

The low power (sub-83W TDP) segment also seems tied up by AMD. Not sure if there is any reasonable competition on 65W TDP. It may well be that even that small niche is divided into Intel C2Q for high performance and AMD for low price.

[citation][nom]article[/nom]This has always puzzled me, and I'm considering exploring it for a more in-depth explanation. Apparently, AVG isn't strongly affected by clock speed or cache;, it only wants to work across multiple cores.[/citation]

Looks like it divides out a fixed amount of work per time to each core. The (time spent * amount of cores) doesn't add up to 16m for the dual cores though. If a single core takes 14 mins, it might vary the workload depending on if you have 1-2 or 3-4 cores. For 5+ testing, how does it work with Hyperthreading?
 

FoShizzleDizzle

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
"Yes, the Athlon II X2 250 has a marginally better price/performance ratio, but remember that multitasking will cripple the Athlon II 250, while the Athlon II X3 435 will fare much better with its extra CPU core."

And shouldn't the chart itself reflect that fact anyways, making that statement moot? Maybe I'm missing something here but that comes off as something rather unnecessary to say. It was as though you came into this expecting the 435 to be the best value for performance, then realized based on your methods that you were wrong, so gave an extra nod to the 435 with that statement when the chart itself shows otherwise. The chart itself is SUPPOSED TO account for the affects of an additional core.

Other than that, very nice review. I really wish the 435 was around sooner so I could've nabbed it.
 

voltagetoe

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2009
63
0
18,630
0
Wth is it ? I've never seen a CPU that would strike so hard so cheaply. Looks like I can afford to upgrade two machines instead of one now.

Oh man...
 

grimjester

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2009
24
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]FoShizzleDizzle[/nom]The chart itself is SUPPOSED TO account for the affects of an additional core.[/citation]

A straight division of performance by price will always favor the cheaper part. I agree it could have been better explained, but if you look at the actual source numbers, there's a noticeable difference in multitasking performance and the price difference is just $10. The price/performance numbers are close, so it makes sense to have a look at the worst case differences and decide based on those if they are tangible enough to pay the extra money for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS