AMD Athlon II X4 620 is true Quad-Core Processor at an exceptional price. The AMD Athlon fastest ever made, now declined on AM3, offers a new level of multi-tasking performance for next generation platforms with a native quad-core architecture, a fine engraving downwards (0045 μ) and an L2 cache more important (2 MB). With a functioning eco-energy "chip and a power tenfold compared to the previous generation of processors (AMD Athlon64 X2), the newcomer is an appropriate solution for intensive use of computers in everyday life, leisure digital, high definition video, video games and all multimedia applications.
This processor is amazing. It works perfectly with only the VCore 1.12V with its original features, i.e. at 2600Mhz (instead of 1.40V by default!). Better yet, it runs perfectly with the 3300Mhz Vcore of origin and all with the fan supplied with the proc! AC and never exceeds 50 ° box closed. With a good fan and a good motherboard must be a way to easily reach 4Ghz. Go for it, at this price is THE processor time. AMD has launched two new quad core processors, the Athlon X4 II 620 and 630. Respectively announced at $ 99 and $ 122, these processors are clocked at 2.6 GHz and 2.8. After the Phenom X4 II X2 and Athlon, Athlon X4 II has a 3rd die developed by AMD in 45nm.
There is thus no question of an assembly of two Athlon X2 II, or a Phenom X4 II with the L3 cache disabled (although in practice it may also be the case): Athlon X4 integrates II on its silicon die 4 cores, each with 128 KB of L1 as all AMD recently. The L2 cache is like the Phenom II 512 KB per core, two times less than the Athlon X2 II. For the rest, we found the bus HyperTransport 3 and the memory controller specific to any CPU DDR2/DDR3 AM3. Of course, the result is a rather small because the whole "weighs" 300 million transistors and is housed in 169mm ² of silicon cons 258mm ² for a Phenom X4 II. This allows AMD to burn much more CPU per wafer and thus lower the cost of production drastically. Compared to what Intel can see that the Athlon X4 II is roughly the same size as a Core 2 Quad range Q9x00 (Q9300/9400).
The latter is based on the assembly of two die in 3MB cache that is used alone on the Core 2 Pentium E7xxx but E6xxx and E5xxx (respectively 1 and 2 MB L2 cache disabled). This same die is also used for Q8x00 (Q8200/8300/8400), then only with 2×2 MB L2. It is interesting to note that the voltages differ significantly between the two processors: for example, the Athlon X4 620 II running at 1.125V and 1.4V at rest over, 1.025V and 1.325V cons for Athlon X4 II 630. These tensions may actually vary from one processor to another depending on the quality of the die, AMD is simply to indicate that the nominal voltage is between 0925 and 1.425V.
Consumption is measured at two levels: first processor power consumption using only the ATX12V socket on the motherboard and a clamp on the other hand, the consumption of the configuration through a meter at the outlet, still loading the machine with Prime95. Be careful, other components such as the graphics card or hard drive are at rest during these measurements. In the case of measuring the ATX12V, we only display the values of a single platform in order to compare what he is, knowing that such AM3 on the memory controller is powered by the taken while on the part LGA1156/1366 encore processor is powered by the ATX standard.
Athlon X4 620 II is fairly efficient at rest over this far displayed by an X4 965. Oddly, despite lower voltage, the 630 version is much more greedy cons at rest supported. It is likely that our Athlon X4 620 II is indeed a recommended but our 630 is actually a much higher to say, a chip with 6MB of L3, but are disabled. The comparison with the Socket 775 is not necessarily in favor of AMD as the configuration-based Q9400 is cheaper at rest supported. It remains in reasonable areas.
Performances :
- Everything is possible to multitask HD video through the most popular games, unleash your creativity and give free rein to your desires through the power of a quad-processor natively heart!
- The visual experience
- Life in High Definition digital entertainment in general and all of your applications like you’ve never seen.
- Energy efficiency
- Achieve energy savings while leveraging the performance of your machine!
Features :
- Architecture native quad-heart
- Compatible DDR3 memory controller integrated DDR2
- Compatibility AM3 and AM2 +
- Manufacturing process 0.045μ
- 95W maximum thermal envelope
- HyperTransport 3.0 system bus ultra-fast
OverClocking on AMD Athlon II X4 620 :
Athlon X4 620 II was able to achieve the 3.2 GHz without affecting its voltage of 1.4V, which suggests that the latter is a bit overstated. At 1.5V, the 3.4 GHz have been stabilized in 4 instances of Prime95. The 630 version was also stable up to 3.2 GHz without affecting its voltage of 1.325V. The 3.4 GHz it could be stabilized at 1.4V, and 1.5V at 3.6 GHz. Although overclocking is inherently uncertain, we can say that the frequency reached on the Athlon X4 II 620 is quite disappointing. It’s a little better for our 630, but not exceptional. The impact on performance is important, since by 8.3% on average.
Overall, the Athlon X4 620 II is on a par with Core 2 Q8200: not bad because it is cheaper! For the first time, dual core processors are included in our test protocol, which allows you to see Athlon II X2 250 is not so far from a Core 2 E7500. Moreover, despite its frequency, the Core 2 E8600 away a little more in our new protocol of a quad core entry-level, applications are more and more multithreaded.
More Info :
In general, it appears that this is an entry-level model with a good performance / price ratio. With performance on average 10% lower than the Core 2 Quad Q8200 Intel, it is very well positioned in price and speed. Consumption side, we can say that AMD has managed well its processor. At rest, it is one of the models consume less. And if no one reaches the excellent performance of recent Core i7 870 and i5 750, the X4 620 is still less greedy than a Core 2 Duo E8600 has two cores only. In business, it’s a little worse and the processor consumes 10% more than a Q8200. With a frequency of 2.6 GHz, its 2MB L2 cache and no L3 cache, this model does not shine in the games. For desktop use and applications do not draw from the presence of more than two cores we also advise rather a dual-core faster and at lower price (Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6500). We therefore advise that model rather to people who use photo-editing applications, video editing or 3D rendering. In these cases, the processor is a little closer Q8200 performance, without equal. Athlon X4 II 630 will also be proposed. Its frequency is higher and goes to 2.8 GHz while the price climbs higher. Let us hope that these prices will drop fast enough to stabilize.
Athlon II X4 620 now formalized by the firm, a CPU that will certainly not fight against the latest Intel Core i7 or i5, but at least has the merit of making easier the accessibility to the Quad Core. In comparison, Intel for roughly the same price you are entitled to a Core 2 Duo E7400 him, has only two hearts. But go on the financial side to see just what this Athlon II in the heart. Athlon X4 II 620 is actually a derivative of the architecture used by Phenom X4 II (see: AMD Phenom II Platform & Dragon . He was known by the codename Propus that stands out is by removing of Level 3 cache. The Athlon X4 II does not therefore of L3 cache and 512KB confined to L2 cache per core for a total of 2MB. Clocked at 2.6 GHz, engraved in 45nm and runs on AM3 and is therefore compatible with DDR3 memory. Despite his lack of L3 cache, the TDP is still 95W, as of a large part of that Phenom them, not waiting in cache. Note also that the X4 620 is the first in line to see the day and will be subsequently followed by Athlon X4 II 630 and 640 which are respectively clocked at 2.8 and 3.0 GHz.
To return to the cache, some screens that can be seen on the web indicate that users were able, through famous optional ACC BIOS of some motherboards enable L3 cache to transform the true Phenom CPU II X4. So there may be several versions of the Athlon X4 II outstanding. The official physically without L3 cache, and the unofficial one that would actually L3 cache which is partially or totally defective. Despite some good efforts at AMD in recent times and a TDP at 95W we were not particularly convinced by the consumption of Phenom II. Athlon II is devoid of L3 cache would have been expected a review to lower TDP famous, but this is not the case, it remains at 95W. Here are our consumption readings both at rest and under load (this is the whole machine): Consumption not only has not been lowered but rather that there is increased compared to a Phenom II 810. Here is a sacred area where progress for AMD, especially as a market that could attack this platform is that of HTPC. Whichever consumption plays an important role.
Conclusion :
It is clear that AMD is not really able to compete with Intel in terms of pure performance. If the last Phenom X4 II 965 permits to catch AMD Socket compared to 775 in exchange for a high consumption, processors LGA1156/1366 remain at significantly higher levels of performance. On the other hand, the Phenom It is quite expensive manufactured due to its size, it was difficult for AMD to compete in the entry-level quad-core. So, even if it has a number of production lines much smaller than Intel, AMD decided to embark on the development of a 45nm 3rd die, while leaving open the possibility of selling in the name Athlon Phenom X4 II with L3 disabled, other features being identical. On the normal versions, the absence of L3 can switch from 758 to 300 million transistors and 258 to 169mm ² 164mm ² for cons … Quad core Intel entry level. Coupled with an aggressive pricing policy, this allows AMD to offer the first quad core processor below $ 100, Athlon X4 II 620.
It remains a more in depth on the line AMD and take it on the turn. It is this time the nostalgic geek will take precedence over the tester without bias. They were used in the days of Athlon and Athlon 64 to see AMD hold the high both in performance than on price to its competitor Intel. Since the release of Core 2, we can only note that AMD is no longer able to follow the fast pace imposed by Intel. This finding is not new to me tell you, but I had witnessed early this year a return to form of AMD and competition that back into place on the midrange market. AMD began to compete with the series of Core 2 Q9xxx and offered a real alternative. Since then, Lynnfield has been there and Phenom II "upscale" have become much less attractive. Once again AMD chose to go fight on a playground smaller and decides to go find another customer with less expensive processors.
