AMD Athlon II X4 635 review
in Processors
Verdict
Performs a little too slowly and costs too much; overshadowed by better value rivals
Review Date: 19 Feb 2010
Reviewed By: Darien Graham-Smith
Price when reviewed: £82 (£96 inc VAT)
Buy it now for: £92
(see more store prices)
Features & Design
![]()
Value for Money
![]()
Performance
![]()
AMD keeps turning out CPUs with different configurations of clock speeds, cores and cache, to the point where it seems that soon every possible combination will be on the market. Not every combination can be a winner, however.
This latest Athlon II is a case in point: it’s generously endowed with four physical cores, but then hobbled by the absence of an L3 cache. The net result is, predictably, mediocre performance: running at a stock speed of 2.9GHz on a Vista system with 2GB of RAM, the X4 635 delivered an overall benchmark score of just 1.55. That’s fine for everyday applications – we regularly recommend laptops with half the performance. But compared with most of Intel’s Core i3 range it’s off the bottom of the chart.
In fairness, the Athlon II X4 635 is at least within sight of the low-end Core i3-530, which scored 1.58 overall. It even beat that chip in our 2D graphics test, scoring 1.92 against the Core i3’s 1.72. It narrowly won in the multitasking test too, scoring 1.75 versus 1.74. But, since the Athlon has four real cores, while the i3 relies on doubling up its twin cores with Hyper-Threading, the thinness of the Athlon’s victory is telling.
In our other tests the Athlon was a clear loser, managing only 1.13 and 1.40 in our Office and encoding exercises, while the i3 scored 1.29 and 1.56 respectively. Since the two chips are almost identically clocked (the Core i3-530 runs at 2.93GHz), you have to conclude that Intel’s baby is simply better engineered.
Predictably, the Core i3’s 32nm architecture brings lower power demands too, idling at just 31W on our LGA 1156 test system and peaking at 79W. Our Athlon system, running on a motherboard with integrated ATI Radeon 4290 graphics, idled at 55W, rising to 113W when we pushed it hard.
If AMD’s chips don’t match the technical sophistication of their rivals, the company generally makes it up with aggressive pricing, but right now you’ll pay more for an X4 635 than for an i3-530, and it’s not even competitive with AMD’s own Phenom II X2 555. Sure, that model has only two cores, but with a healthy 6MB L3 cache and a faster clock speed it’s still faster in our benchmarks, and £16 cheaper.
All told, the Athlon II X4 635 is a chip with little going for it. Don’t be tempted by its four cores: you’ll get more performance for your money elsewhere.
Author: Darien Graham-Smith
Best Prices
Price comparison powered by 
| Prices, delivery and availability at 1 retailer | Go | |
|
£92 | Go |
From around the web
"But compared with most of Intel’s Core i3 range it’s off the bottom of the chart".
Does Intel have a Most Of Core i3 Chart?
- Thought Not!
"Intel’s baby is simply better engineered". You are compairing different generations of technologies, what do you expect to find?
Which is the more powerful for crunching?
By skgiven on 4 Mar 2010 ![]()
clinamen
Be careful of the numbers here. Compare the numbers this review with the numbers here:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/processors/355675/a
md-phenom-ii-x2-555
which extol the virtues of the Phenom vs i3.
The specific numbers for specific tests don't agree. In fact, the reason I chose the then available Athlon IIx4 630 was the particularly good numbers in 2D. But what also has to be taken in serious consideration is the video card's 2D performance.
By LawrenceHudetz on 4 Mar 2010 ![]()
Just to be clear, the Phenom II X2 255 is good value compared to the similarly-performing Core i3-540, while this model, the Athlon II X4 635, is worse value than the better-performing Core i3-530.
By DarienGS on 5 Mar 2010 ![]()
advertisement
- LinkedIn revenue doubles as membership soars
- Kodak kills off cameras
- UK broadband project spending £1m on legal fees
- Microsoft: Windows on ARM won't be sold separately
- Intel pays five hours of profits to settle antitrust case
- Windows 8 on ARM to run desktop apps... but only Office
- Ofcom dithers over plans to tackle broadband slamming
- Data boost bolsters Vodafone revenue
- Google working on cloud storage system
- Lenovo's profit leaps 54% on market gains
- Chrome's shine getting lost in translation
- BytePac: the cardboard hard disk enclosure
- How tech loosens our grip on reality
- Hokum watch: Safer Internet Day
- 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
- The ultimate guide to passwords
- 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
- Why virtualisation hasn't slowed the growth of data
- 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
advertisement






