AMD's Athlon II X3 435

AMD's Athlon II X3 435

SYSMark 2007 Performance

Our journey starts with SYSMark 2007, the only all-encompassing performance suite in our review today. The idea here is simple: one benchmark to indicate the overall performance of your machine.

Overall performance under SYSMark is pretty balanced for the Athlon II X3 435. It's faster than the $99 quad-core (620) but slightly slower than the quad core 630. We're slower than the old triple core Phenom II X3 720 though.

................................................................................................

AMD's Athlon II X3 435

AMD's Athlon II X3 435

Fallout 3 Game Performance

Bethesda’s latest game uses an updated version of the Gamebryo engine (Oblivion). This benchmark takes place immediately outside Vault 101. The character walks away from the vault through the Springvale ruins. The benchmark is measured manually using FRAPS.
Finally! We have a test where the Athlon II X3 435's clock speed gives it the advantage over the 620. If you're a gamer but want more cores, the 435 is a good balance of performance in existing games but better than dual-core performance in well threaded apps.

Left 4 Dead

I've got no complaints about the X3's performance in Left 4 Dead either, it's nearly as fast as the more expensive Core 2 Duo E7500 (and with a much tastier upgrade path).

FarCry 2 Multithreaded Game Performance

FarCry 2 ships with the most impressive benchmark tool we’ve ever seen in a PC game. Part of this is due to the fact that Ubisoft actually tapped a number of hardware sites (AnandTech included) from around the world to aid in the planning for the benchmark.

For our purposes we ran the CPU benchmark included in the latest patch:

Even in our most heavily threaded game test, the X3 435 is a bit faster than the 620.

Crysis Warhead

..................................................................................................

Intel Core i7 Mobile CPU (Clarksfield) Review

Intel Core i7 Mobile CPU (Clarksfield) Review
Battery Performance

The Clevo W870CU whitebook came with a 3,800mAh, 42.18Wh Li-Polymer battery. Because of the large 17-inch display, powerful processor and GPU, and two fans, we didn't expect a long battery life from the desktop-replacement unit. In fact, the Clevo site indicates that the W870CU should be capable of about 90 minutes of battery life (the unit doesn't actually ship until October).

The whitebook's mere 38 minutes of battery life on the BatteryEater Pro test was very disappointing, to say the least--and even a lot less than the modest time we expected. With less than 40 minutes of battery life, there's not a whole lot you can do with the notebook before it runs out of juice or needs to be plugged back in for charging. It is important to keep in mind, however, that this unit is still considered a pre-production unit, so we can only hope that Clevo has a few tricks up its sleeve in order to eke out another 50 minutes of so from the battery to get the system up to it estimated 90 minutes of battery life.

We also connected the whitebook to a power meter to see how much power it consumes. With the notebook sitting in an idle state (logged into the OS with no active foreground tasks), the whitebook operated at around 44W. When we cranked up the Cinebench R10 multi-threaded workload--with all four physical execution cores active--the unit's power consumption jumped up to about 96W.

...................................................................................................