AMD Athlon II X4 620 review
in Processors
Verdict
Nothing incredible in terms of design, but it's an impressively cheap way to get quad-core in your PC
Review Date: 16 Sep 2009
Reviewed By: David Bayon
Price when reviewed: £70 (£80 inc VAT)
Buy it now for: £88
(see more store prices)
Features & Design
![]()
Value for Money
![]()
Performance
![]()
![]()
Away from the hullabaloo surrounding the swanky Intel Core i5s and AMD Phenoms, the chaps behind the latter have been quietly working on a way to keep the old Athlon brand alive and kicking. We might have expected a new Black Edition perhaps, or a lower power draw and smaller manufacturing process; what we didn't see coming was a quad-core Athlon.
Called the Athlon II X4, it shares much of its architecture with the existing Phenom II. It's a Socket AM3 part with a 95W TDP (thermal design power), and its four cores each come with 512KB of L2 cache; the big difference from the Phenom II is the absence of L3 cache. This makes it more or less a budget Phenom II X4, so we were intrigued to see what effect that omission had on performance.
There are two parts being released initially: on review here is the X4 620, with a 2.6GHz core clock speed, but there will also be a top-end 2.8GHz X4 630. In an AMD 790FX motherboard with 2GB of DDR3-1066 memory and a Western Digital Caviar SE16 hard disk, the 2.6GHz 620 scored 1.45 in our real-world benchmarks.
It did so while drawing a low 78W when idle and 128W at full pelt, although it's worth pointing out that last month's Core i5 system scored 1.85 but was even more frugal, drawing just 60W and 124W respectively.
But the real headline grabber is the price. AMD is launching the Athlon II X4 620 with an SRP of $99 and we've already seen early retail listings at around £80 inc VAT. This puts it right up against existing quad-core parts: an old 2.3GHz Phenom X4 9650 will set you back the same amount and scored an identical 1.45 but with a 65nm die size, while the cheapest Phenom II X4 part will cost you at least £110. Then there's Intel, whose cheapest Core 2 Quad, the 2.33GHz Q8200, costs around £105 for a slower score of 1.37.
Pair it up with one of AMD's 785G-based motherboards, which were launched last month as the company's mainstream range, and you have a very affordable route to a quad-core system. True, it's not exactly a revolutionary leap from its Phenom roots, but as long as the price keeps going down and the performance keeps rising the Athlon brand looks to have plenty of life in it yet.
Author: David Bayon
Best Prices
Price comparison powered by 
| Prices, delivery and availability at 2 retailers | Go | |
|
£95 | Go |
From around the web
Its always good to see AMD constantly releasing new and cheaper parts - though I'd love to see them take the lead and innovate, rather than just compete. Well at least it'll force intel to reduce its prices!
By nicomo on 17 Sep 2009 ![]()
I need speed where is my dream 16core 4processor capable motherboard
Gee wizzzz, what I would do with a laptop with 4 of these baby's on, 8gig ram OLED touch screen with ipod style touch pad and oled haptic touch keys..... oh yes and two hard drives, one removable and one solid state 250gig...
HDMI output usb2, wirelsss usb, wifi, wifimax, screen lid touch control..... 6 hour battery life with solar panel lid.
would I buy one of these? yes n heartbeat. but where is the rest of it.... now if only someone would build this.
By webslave_uk on 18 Sep 2009 ![]()
Counter attack
I think this is a counter attack to Intel's cheaper CPU's. It will drive the Intel price down, reducing their margins and making AMD look relatively more competitive on the market if only because Intel will not have their margin.
This reminds me of single and dual core Celerons, outperforming the alternative P4's simply due to their clock speed. So I do think that the fast cores will have a place. The 620 and 630 should perform well in standard business systems, but they are far too power hungry for my liking, especially considering they don’t have L3 cache!
By skgiven on 24 Sep 2009 ![]()
advertisement
- How to install Internet Explorer 9
- Maintaining and supporting IE9
- Plan your deployment
- Creating a custom browser package
- Search in corporate environments
- HTC admits phones "could be better" as sales tank
- RM: we were caught out by education cuts
- Web giants forced to remove content in India
- Apple drops claim to content created in iBooks Author
- Ofcom to impose price cuts on BT line rental
- Micron appoints new boss after plane crash kills CEO
- Apple pulls iPhones/iPads in patent dispute
- Virgin hikes prices after "free" upgrade
- Poor careers advice sees children miss out on IT jobs
- BT to offer 300Mbits/sec fibre "on demand"
- Why I'm deleting Adobe from my PC
- Prepare to be patronised: it's Safer Internet Day
- Dear Sony, Samsung and every other tech company in the world: stop trying to be Apple
- Will Apple's Final Cut Pro X update placate the pros?
- Smartr Contacts for iPhone review
- Switching to Office 365's Outlook Web App
- Amazon Kindle Fire review: first look
- Lytro light-field camera: first look
- CES: Why booth babes are bad marketing
- Ice Cream Sandwich on the Transformer Prime review: first look
- How Apple lulls Mac owners into a false sense of security
- Privacy - outdated luxury or public necessity?
- Building the bionic man
- The making of open-source software
- Top 10 stupid security stories of 2011
- 10 techs to watch in 2012
- PC Pro's favourite tech products of 2011
- 10 most read articles on PC Pro in 2011
- 50 ways to make your PC better
- A licence to print anything
- How to make Google AdWords work for your business
- The curse of sloppily written software
- Paying for your crimes with Bitcoin
- Behind the scenes: tech support for Formula 1
- The security risk of fat fingers
- Why Windows Phone 7 isn't quite ready for business
- When will Microsoft stop fiddling with Windows 8?
- Flash down the pan?
- Metro Style apps vs desktop applications
- Coping with Facebook changes
advertisement





