Athlon II X4 630 & 620: Affordable Quad Cores

CPUs|Motherboards
Viewing page 3 of 5 pages. Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

TEST RESULTS

Our test systems consist of 2x2GB of DDR3 memory, a GeForce 9400GT graphics card, WD VelociRaptor hard drive and an OEM Seasonic power supply. Unfortunately we did not have a Q8200 at our disposal so instead we a Q8200S (the 45W version of the Q8200) and a Q6600, an older 95W 65 nm processor using a slower 1066 MHz front bus, but with a higher 2.4 GHz clock speed and twice as much L2 cache. It is safe to assume an actual Q8200 will fall somewhere in-between these two processors in terms of power consumption. The ambient temperature was 22°C.

Test Results: General System Power Consumption (AC)
Processor
Idle
VC-1
Playback
CPU Load
(half cores)
CPU
(all cores)
C2Q Q8200S
64W
75W
99W
115W
X4 620 (UV)*
66W
86W
99W
124W
X2 550 BE
65W
85W
N/A
129W
C2Q Q6600
69W
83W
120W
139W
X4 630 (UV)*
71W
89W
111W
139W
X4 620
66W
87W
117W
153W
X4 630
71W
89W
122W
157W
X3 720 BE
76W
97W
N/A
153W
X4 810
79W
99W
127W
159W
*X4 630 undervolted by 0.125V, X4 620 by 0.2375V.

Overall the X4 630 consistently used about 5W more than the lower clocked X4 620, not enough to be considered significant. Both proved to be more power efficient than their Phenom II cousins, the X3 720 and X4 810, but only when idle or with a light load like VC-1 video playback. It seems L3 cache creates a noticeable energy demand. System power consumption between the two Athlon II X4's and the 95W Q6600 were also similar except at full load where the Q6600 used 15~20W less.

Undervolting reduced the X4 630's full load consumption by 18W, while the X4 620 saved 29W. This was no surprise as we were able to undervolt the 620 by almost twice the amount as the 630. When undervolted, our X4 620 sample probably uses about the same amount of energy as a Q8200.

Performance

Test Results: Benchmarks
Processor
NOD32
WinRAR
iTunes
TMPGEnc
PCMark05
C2Q Q8200S
2:59
3:43
4:20
3:56
7648
C2Q Q6600
2:56
3:41
4:35
3:59
7740
X2 550 BE
2:34
3:09
4:44
4:54
7217
X4 810
3:05
3:32
5:38
3:29
7756
X4 630
3:10
3:58
5:21
3:19
8203
X3 720 BE
2:47
3:16
5:13
5:08
7738
X4 620
3:23
4:05
5:44
3:32
7660

Our brief benchmark suite favored the Q8200S over the X4 620/630. The Q8200S held a large lead over the two Athlons in our iTunes encoding test, and posted smaller wins in our anti-virus and file archiving tests. The X4 620 and 630 beat Intel's offerings in video encoding with TMPGEnc — the type of task where quad cores typically shine. Overall we'd say the Athlon II X4's need another 200~300 MHz to truly compete with the Q8200 in our test suite, but if you typically use more thread-aware applications, the balance will tip in the other direction.

The 2.8 GHz Athlon II X4 630 performed similarly to the 2.6 GHz Phenom X4 810 — an extra 200 MHz in clock speed seems to make up for the 630's lack of L3 cache. It should be noted however that the X4 800 series has 4MB of L3 cache while the 900 series sports 6MB.



Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

CPUs|Motherboards - Article Index
Help support this site, buy from one of our affiliate retailers!
Search: