AMD Athlon II X4 635 review
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)
Features & Design
Value for Money
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
"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
Be careful of the numbers here. Compare the numbers this review with the numbers here:
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
- Toshiba beats retreat from consumer PC market
- Google to follow Apple with device encryption
- U2 and Apple working on "new music format"
- Ellison steps down: but who's really running Oracle now?
- Audioboo to become Audioboom in app revamp
- Apple slaps down Google and police, as it takes high ground on user privacy
- Amazon releases high-end Kindle Voyage Touch
- What's on this week's PC Pro podcast?
- Virgin carpeted again for broadband speed claims
- Microsoft set to make more job cuts
- How to check your identity hasn’t been sold to the hackers
- Tim Cook: this is how much TV has changed since the 70s
- Westminster wins the .London battle
- 20 years of PC Pro: from deep pan pizza to virtualisation
- Five reasons why the Apple Watch leaves me cold
- Apple Watch, iPhone 6 and 6 Plus: Tim Cook's Apple back with a bang?
- BT Home Hub 5: how to get maximum speed
- 20 years of PC Pro: one-star reviews (including "the worst tablet we've ever seen")
- 20 years of PC Pro: our best covers
- Why we've closed the PC Pro forums
- The 7 best Chromebooks of 2014
- iPhone 6 vs Galaxy S5: is the Apple or Samsung flagship smartphone right for you?
- How to install iOS 8 without deleting apps and data
- The best smartwatches of 2014: what's the best smartwatch?
- Nexus 6 (X or Shamu) release date, price and specs rumour roundup
- Best of IDF: top tech and memorable moments from Intel's tech show
- How Apple Pay works and how to use it on your iPhone 6 or Apple Watch
- Tech of the future... and the British boffins building it
- Abuse magnets: the people behind corporate Twitter accounts
- Putting people at the centre of software design
- How to sell more ebooks on Amazon
- 10 ways to make your business more secure
- Top five VoIP mistakes
- How to add in-app purchasing to an iPhone, Android or Windows app
- Remote-control ransomware: TeamViewer and software hardball
- Why laptops with serial ports matter to the Internet of Things
- Make your mobile battery last longer
- Small steps into handling Big Data
- Nexus 5: does it really run stock Android?
- How to get broadband to a garden office