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
- Diaspora: we can't stop spread of beheading videos
- Sony Xperia Z3 specs leak online
- iPhone 6 and iPhone 6L pictures leak online
- Bug hunters paid to target Oculus Rift
- Meet the "scarecrows" and "snipers" slaying Twitter spam
- Google gets one million DMCA piracy takedowns a day
- What's on this week's PC Pro podcast?
- Twitter bans beheading video, lets family members remove death photos
- HTC launches One M8 for Windows... but only in the US
- Nokia Lumia 530 UK release date and price revealed
- 20 years of PC Pro: our greatest review mistakes
- 20 years of PC Pro: our first A-List
- Wikipedia's "right to be forgotten" protest hits the wrong note
- 3D printing hits the high street for plastic selfies
- 20 years of PC Pro: What amazed us in our first issue
- How Google Glass ruined my lunch hour
- Smartphone battery packs: can a USB power pack beat the festival battery blues?
- Windows Easy Transfer – not so "easy" in Windows 8.1
- Formula 1: what a difference virtualisation makes
- Office of the future: comfy chairs and tablets everywhere
- What’s the best 4G network in the UK?
- How to set up a wireless hotspot for your business: give customers free or paid for internet access
- How to download YouTube videos: save YouTube videos to your iPhone, iPad, laptop or Android device
- How to access iCloud on a PC
- Nexus 5 vs Moto G 4G (2014 model)
- Chromecast vs Roku Streaming Stick vs Apple TV: what's the best TV streaming device?
- The 8 best small tablets of 2014: what's the best compact tablet?
- How to edit PDFs: make change to a PDF
- Building a patently better future
- How to update Android apps individually: stop Google Play apps from auto-updating
- 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
- How to write your company's IT security policy