AMD has always been one to play the pricing card in its never-ending tussle with Intel, but we get the feeling this introduction may pack more of a punch than any before it. It's a simple concept -- the $99 quad-core
CPU -- and given just how in love we Americans are with value menus, you can bet new PC builders will at least give the new Athlon II X4 620 ($99) and 630 ($122) a look. Reviews around the web essentially came to the same conclusion: it's not the fastest quad-core chip around, and the lack of L3 certainly doesn't make it the most attractive, but the 620 somehow manages to compete with all of the processors in its price range while being the cheapest. The "cut-down Phenom II," as
HotHardware calls it, suffers a bit on the gaming side due to the L3 removal, but in general scenarios it was plenty potent. Hit the links below if you feel like digging in way, way deeper.
Read - HotHardware
Read - TechSpot
Read - MaximumPC
Read - PC Perspective
Read - TweakTown
Read - PC Pro
Read - AMD Zone
posted Sep 16th 2009 8:53AM
You might wanna update Anandtech's review as well
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3638
"AMD effectively knocked 40% off the value of Intel's low end quad-core CPUs. The Athlon II X4 620 manages to, at $99, perform close enough to the Core 2 Quad Q8200 that the latter simply doesn't make any sense. Add another hundred dollars and you'll get a Core i5 750 (or less will get you into a Phenom II X4 945/955), but if you're on a strict budget you can't beat the 620."
overclocking time.
It's a bloody nice deal. So it's only about 70% as powerful as the top of the line processors. It has more than enough processing power for 90% of computer users, and it can handle all the latest games.
Not to mention ddr3 controllers so that when i get one of these for my dad it will be a good long term investment.
it apparently gets to 3.5ghz for the 620 model
YAY!!! Even though I use primarily Intel processors I love the fact that AMD is giving Intel competition. Plus it looks like soon Nvidia will give both AMD and Intel competition on the netbook front too. I'm looking forward to the savings I get to see in my near future...
Bro Nvidia is dead. Lrn2keep up with the latest news.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/09/15/nvidia-gt300-yeilds-under-2/
Time to buy some AMD shares.
Nvidia is dead because they released a not so great GPU?
well. dead for the next few rounds sort of like what happened to ATI.
Just saying this usually happens one of these two companies becomes very strong for a while and than the other... The big winners are the stock holders who come in at the right time.
Tegra is far from dead and that's the platform that's getting ready to take off in netbooks, cellphones and pmp's....
To clarify my point I was talking about Nvidia replacing Intel and AMD on the processing front not GPU...
IIRC, didn't the nVidia 280 or 9800 chipset or have an extremely low yield when it came out? The Tegra will do well considering there's not really any competition that's up to par with it. So I'd say nVidia is fine...
Can I use this with my old M2N E-Sli AM2 socket board?
You should check with MB producer. Likely they would require an BIOS update just like with any new CPU generation.
Otherwise, if Wikipedia to be trusted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM2#Successors - yes:
"Socket AM2+ chips can plug into a socket AM2 motherboard, but operate only with HyperTransport 2.0."
And the CPUs are advertised to support both AM2+ and AM3.
This is what AMD needs. It will look great to consumers to see such a cheap quad core in a desktop pc. The price will be nice too.
Most of the people buying this would probably have been better off with a faster dual core. Just because it says "quad":does not make it better.
Please elaborate?
I'm actually all in for noobs getting quad cores, this will push developers to see that quads are penetrating the market, and have their programs and games quad and x64 optimized (thus giving quads the advantage over duals) Sure right now its not the best idea to get a quad over a dual core, but if nobody becomes the pioneer/test bunny nobody else will follow suite
Yes, let's be stupid and pay $102 for the Phenom 550 while we can get a quad for $99...
It blows my mind how noobs think that they can't use those two other cores. It doesn't matter if the programs are single threaded, or dual threaded a single bit. You can have different programs running on different cores. Windows uses processes, you can have Windows processes running on one or two cores, and your game running on the other two. Not to mention the quad destroys duals in video encoding.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
@denrocks1 - yeah, cuz EVERYONE needs to have a quad core. I personally use my computer for surfing the web and GAMES. I'd rather take a Phenom II 550 BE for the extra $2 because my games will perform better (most are single or at most dual threaded). Not to mention I can hit 3.8~3.9GHz on air with the 550, where as the X4 620 tops out around 3.4GHz. The world does not revolve around you.
@ the dual-core people
Enjoy upgrading your system when games come out that can take advantage of quad-cores and then suddenly your dual-core looks like crap. In the meantime, enjoy your extra 5 FPS from 60 to 65 FPS. Your graphics card is much, much, much more important for performance than small differences in clock speed, but if a game can use all 4 cores then performance *will* have a much bigger benefit.
I use PCSX2 (a PS2 emulator), which doesn't use more than 2 cores. I do have a PS2, though upscalling my games to 1080p and beyond is seriously cool.
As AMD wasn't an option (Intel Motherboard), I went with the E8500.
Quads in that price range would be the Q6600, that, while also pretty good, did not guarantee a sucessful overclock at 4GHz with aircooling, which pretty much all E84/85/86's do.
I would probably get the Q6600 to around 3.4~3.6GHz, which, while pretty good for PC games, doesn't give perfect emulation when upscalling games (without upscalling it handles most games quite fine). So I went for a 4GHz Dual, and now have a perfectly fine PC gaming rig, with the added ability to play upscalled to HD PS2 games.
Would I have gotten the E8500 if I didn't use PCSX2? Probably not, seeing as 4GHz is overkill for normal gaming - but this is pretty much it when it comes to balancing my needs, seeing as I couldn't afford higher-end solutions.
Just goes to show that it depends on what you need. You can't just go on and say "This one's better! The other one sucks!".
Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, and you just need to go for what suits your needs best. Unless you can afford an i7 or something, then you just get the best of both worlds I suppose.
This is amazing news for anyone looking to build a PC in the near future, regardless of whether or not you hold some bullshit allegiance to Intel or AMD.
AMD is consistently keeping Intel in check, undercutting them on price, and make high performance chips cheaper for all of us.
Cheap lower speed quad and cheap high speed dual, good show AMD....
Hooooly SMP, batman!
Cheap shit....is still shit at the end of the day.
than what?
I'll stick with Intel...
-1 for making a blanket statement without explaining yourself. Fanboy.
@ glenn s: I'd have to disagree.
He did not say "AMD sucks!" or "Intel FTW!". He merely stated he'd stick with Intel. I will too, seeing as I have an Intel Motherboard.
He probably will as well due to that, but he doesn't need to explain himself as to why he'll stick with one brand or the other. If he said one brand was better, THEN he'd have to provide an argument. He merely stated which of the two brands he'll keep on using, without calling names or being rude about it.
The problem wasn't about what he wrote, but how you read it.
@saddam
Ah, in that case...
I am going to go and take a dump on all Intel owners' lawns. For no reason that I will say. If you've got a problem with that, you shouldn't have read my comment.
When did he say he would take a dump on anyone's lawn? You look more of a fanboy than him.
He just said he'd stick with Intel. He has his reasons, and isn't obliged to tell you why. He did not make any statement regarding other people.
The saddest part is you don't understand that and act even worse than that which you supposedly hate so much.
When did I say that he said that? I said that, not him.
The problem isn't what I wrote, it's how your read what I wrote.
This and the recent annoucement of unlocked cablecard tuners would make for a mean and cheap HTPC.
I'll stick with Intel...
Got it the first time...
I have a hard time understanding the Intel fanaticism. I get that high performance system builders go with intel. If you need the absolute best, in terms of DD3 performance or whatever, by all means build an intel. But whats with bargain hunters going intel? As far as processors go, AMD only just falls short of Intel's selection in terms of performance at a price point, but once you build a whole system, it seems like going AMD drops $100-200 from the whole system cost due to cheaper MOBOs (which I also don't understand- why intel MOBOs cost so much more than AMD mobos from the same third party). I think its great that AM2+ and AM3 sockets are pin compatible (that makes your MOBO an investment right now).
If AMD could crank out a quad core at 65W and under $100, I think they'd have a real winner. I'd buy two for home server use.
@someguy
I totally agree. My most recent build was a HTPC with a Zotac nvidia 9300 itx board and an Intel 6330 CPU. The choice to go Intel was based purely on the features of the motherboard (GPU video acceleration in Linux with the Nvidia chipset being primary). Otherwise, at the lower and mid-range AMD is very competitive. I always price out feature equivalent systems for AMD and Intel when putting together a new machine for myself or friends and consider both price and upgradeablilty. Limiting yourself to use CPU mfg from the start is just plain stupid. Same thing goes for all other types of fan boys There are no rewards for loyalty to a multi-billion dollar corporation.
That would be a 6300 cpu, BTW. Hey Engadget, upgrade to comment system already. Editing would be nice.
The core2duo is still a better laptop CPU than the AMD offerings, unless you are looking at really low end stuff. Even there the dual core celerons are fantastic CPUs.
He did not say "AMD sucks!" or "Intel FTW!". He merely stated he'd stick with Intel. I will too, seeing as I have an Intel Motherboard.
He probably will as well due to that, but he doesn't need to explain himself as to why he'll stick with one brand or the other. If he said one brand was better, THEN he'd have to provide an argument. He merely stated which of the two brands he'll keep on using, without calling names or being rude about it.
The problem wasn't about what he wrote, but how you read it.
Will this work with my motherboard in my Compaq CQ5110F?!
Called it!
Where are the 45W chips? (600e and 605e)
First time I read the headline as "AMD poops out sub-$100...quad-core..." Somehow, I think that would have been an appropriate headline too, given how many CPUs there are now in the AMD line-up. Not that I'm complainer or anything.
best motherboard for this?
This is quite exciting for video editing on the cheap, especially. My interest is piqued. Well done AMD.
Man, what a little competition does.
Darn, I built a new system with an Intel E7500 a few months ago in hope that I could upgrade to a quad later on... Makes me wish I went AMD.
Time to build a new computer...
Are these faster than my Phenom ii 940? Which by the way I'm too scared to overclock. Is there a massive advantage in overclocking? because I haven't found a game that max's it out yet.
Does an OS like Ubuntu 9.04 or Windows 7 automatically take advantage of the 4 cores when you are multitasking?
I don't do much gaming anymore, but I do a decent amount of video conversion, mass compression/decompression of big .rar libraries, run 20-30 FF tabs ect, and I usually have windows 7 up in a virtual box window (running Ultimate Edition 2.2 (Ubuntu 9.04 based)....Atm I'm running a Core 2 duo E6300, wondering if moving to a chip like this with a compatible Mobo would help pick up the performance?
I would love to go 64bit (for the added memory capacity), but atm there are just too many issues with getting 64bit Procs/OSs having random problems with running certain applications, so 32-bit it is.
Wondering if this would be a worthwhile upgrade.