Conclusion: The AMD Athlon X4 620 is an awesome processor in my book. Compared to the , it costs about RM 100 (about 40%) extra but you get 4 cores running at 2.6ghz with 512Kb L2 cache per core instead of 2 cores at 3.0ghz with 1Mb L2 cache per core. Compared to the , it is 75% the cost but you get 4 cores instead of 2 cores with 4 threads. Despite the comparison above, it is in no way saying any of those processors are bad – they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Conclusion: Today, we do not have an entirely dissimilar situation. The Athlon II X4 620 is just $20 cheaper than the Phenom II X3 720 ; and while it has the advantage of shipping with all four cores enabled, it also lacks the massive 6MB L3 cache of the Phenom II X3 720. Thus in terms of performance the triple-core chip will likely be faster than the Athlon II X4 620 in most cases, as it is also clocked 200MHz higher.
Excerpt: Table of contents « Prev All Pages Next » AMD Athlon II X4 620 benched 2 Overclocking 3 Under-Voltaging 4 Multimedia 5 3DMark, FarCry2 6 Power Consumption 7 Conclusion This review is also available in German .
Excerpt: Table of contents « Prev All Pages Next » AMD Athlon II X4 620 am Prüfstand 2 Übertakten 3 "Under-Voltaging" 4 Multimedia 5 3DMark, FarCry2 6 Energieverbrauch 7 Fazit Dieser Aritkel ist auch auf englisch verfügbar.
Conclusion: This is a pretty decent CPU, for 90$ you get alot of performance especially if you overclock the CPU a little bit. It performs better than 905e in stock performance and cost almost half the price. This CPU should do well in HTPC setups and even in normal setups where you need a CPU that doesnt use alot of power, it remains cooler and uses less electricity with its 95W.
Summary: In most scenarios Athlon II X4 620 was faster than an Intel-based system on the same price range (Pentium E6300). The only important exception was on Photoshop CS4, where Pentium E6300 was 24% faster than Athlon II X4 620, and file compression with WinRAR, where both CPUs achieved the same performance.
Although on-board video is not the best platform for running games, with AMD785G you can at least run them to see how they look like.
Summary: Our timed benchmarks showed evidence that the Athlon II X4 630 and 620 perform slightly slower than Intel's cheapest quad core, the Q8200, in mundane everyday tasks like anti-virus scanning and file archiving. However, there is $20~$40 price difference, so from a value standpoint, they're about the same. On the other hand, the Q8200 fell to both the 630 and 620 in our most demanding test, which involved video encoding.
Excerpt: AMD has recently expanded the Athlon II product line to include quad core processors, under the codename Propus. We are going to be taking a look at the two new Quad-Core processors, the Athlon II X4 620 and Athlon II X4 630 which operate at 2.6GHz and 2.8GHz respectively. Both processors have 2 MBs of L2 Cache per core and are both 95W (45nm) processors.