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
- Will right to be forgotten extend to Google.com?
- Samsung Gear VR uses smartphone for virtual reality
- Google X gathering medical data to build picture of health
- Amazon posts another loss - its biggest since 2012
- Google ditches OpenSSL in Chrome
- Apple and Swatch to buddy up for iWatch release
- StubHub fraud: how hackers stole $1m using tickets
- Mobile success boosts Facebook's profit by 138%
- What's on this week's PC Pro podcast?
- Unlock your Moto X with a "tattoo"
- 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
- I went to Glastonbury and the only thing that got high was my smartphone
- Meet the robots helping teach children
- PaperLater: would you pay to print the internet?
- Amazon vs Kobo: how much to make the ebook switch?
- Phishing emails: how I nearly got caught out
- 13 computers that changed the world
- How to download YouTube videos to a PC or laptop: is it legal to download YouTube videos?
- Hacking the Internet of Things: from smart cars to toilets
- BlackBerry Passport release date, specs, features, and rumours: when is the new BlackBerry coming out?
- What's changing in the computing curriculum
- Teaching kids to code
- Best free translation apps for iOS, Android and Windows Phone
- Five worst SMB security threats... and how to solve them
- Apple iOS vs Android vs Windows 8 – what's the best compact tablet OS?
- The 12 best tablets of 2014: what’s the best tablet on the market?
- 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
- Raspberry Pi and Wolfram: a must-have for every child
- Could you get by with Office Web Apps?