Pure Overclock – Computer Hardware News, Reviews and More

 

AMD Athlon II X2 240e & Athon II X3 435

1
Posted October 21, 2009 by Jake in CPU & Motherboards

Rating

Price
 
 
 
 
 


Performance
 
 
 
 
 


Installation
 
 
 
 
 


Warranty
 
 
 
 
 


PureOC
 
 
 
 
 


Total Score
 
 
 
 
 


Overview

Hardware:
 
Manufacturer:
 

Discuss in the Forum
by Jake
Full Article
« »

Specifications

The specifications for the Athlon II X3 435 are as follows:

  • Model Number: Athlon II X3 435
  • Frequency: 2.9GHz
  • Cache size: 64KB of L1 instruction and 64KB of L1 data cache per core (384KB total L1 per processor) and 512KB L2 data cache per core (1.5MB L2 per processor)
  • Process Technology: 45 nanometer SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology
  • HyperTransport Technology Links: One 16bit/16bit link @ up to 4.0GHz full duplex (2.0GHz x2)
  • Memory Controller Speed: Up to 2.0GHz with Dual Dynamic Power Management
  • Supported Memory: PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066MHz) and PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333MHz)
  • Die Size and Transistor Count: 169mm^2, ~300million transistors
  • Packaging: Socket AM3 – 938-pin organic micro Pin Grid Array (micro-PGA)

The specifications for the Athlon II X2 240e follow:

  • Model Number: Athlon II X2 240e (low-wattage CPU – 45W)
  • Frequency: 2.8GHz
  • Cache Size: 64KB of L1 instruction and 64KB of L1 data cache per core (256KB total L1 per processor) and 1MB of L2 data cache per core (2MB total L2 per processor)
  • Process Technology: 45 nanometer SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology
  • Memory Controller Speed: Up to 2.0GHz with Dual Dynamic Power Management
  • Supported Memory: PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066MHz) and PC3-8500 (DDR3-1066MHz)
  • Die Size and Transistor Count: 117.5mm^2, ~234million transistors
  • Packaging: Socket AM3 – 938-pin organic micro Pin Grid Array (micro-PGA)

The key difference between these processors and their bigger brothers in the Phenom family is the lack of an L3 cache. In the sea of available mainstream chips, by specs, these do not stand out. They feature both DDR2 and DDR3 memory controllers, great for those who don’t have a pressing need or desire to move to AM3, and want to continue to use AM2 boards, and similarly great for those who have moved onto the current AM3 socket. Both are defensible positions, and the decision on which to use is left up to the user, a good move on AMD’s part.

The original Athlon family of XP and 64 bit processors brought about a CPU revolution. A smaller company with lower clocked CPUs was beating down the doors of the behemoth of CPU technology, Intel. The chips brought about slower clocked processors which ran cooler, ran much, much faster, clock for clock, 64 bit code support, and an integrated memory controller. Now, the Athlon family is back. The Athlon II family is a line of AM3 CPUs on a 45nm process, and are all aggressively priced, and are strong performers. While they lack the innovation and powerful impression set on the market by the originals, they are not to be dismissed without consideration.

While the Phenom II lineup of CPUs is geared toward gamers, power users and enthusiasts, the Athlon II line is designed with the mainstream computer user in mind. With low power consumption, good performance and, most importantly to the mainstream user, an excellent price, they are clear contenders in the mainstream market.

While they’re no Bloomfields or Lynnfields, they’re by no means cornfields.

Let’s take a look at our test setups, and get ready for some number pushing.

« »


One Comment


  1.  
    Dave

    I too love the value in these (albeit now aged) Athlon II’s, though something can beat the feeling of getting another 1GHz on a ~ 3GHz chip…

    Back in the day you could o’c a 300MHz Celeron to 450MHz, 533MHz model to a little over 800MHz, etc. and do it with a basic 4 cubic inch all aluminum heatsink and a 200W PSU, even with only one fan in the whole system.

    Back then, such a large gain really meant something for your everyday productivity while today… getting 160FPS in a game instead of 130FPS or your set-it-and-leave encoding times cut by 50% doesn’t seem to matter as much.





Leave a Response


(required)

Find us on Google+