AMD Athlon-II X4-645 Propus Processor Review

According to the August Steam Hardware Survey, more than half of gamers use a dual-core processor in their systems. While quad-core processing is on the rise, it still represents only about a quarter of gamers. Still, that's quite the increase since last year when more gamers still used single-core than quad-core processors. Undoubtedly AMD has had something to do with this increasing trend. The Athlon-II quad-core processors have made gaming with four cores more affordable than ever. With the increasing number of games and other applications that can fully utilize multiple processing threads, quad-cores have become more important for computer users to be able to reach higher levels of productivity.

With each new release of an Athlon-II processor, AMD reasserts its control on the entry-level market by providing another great quality CPU at a very affordable price. The release of the Athlon-II X4-645 ADX645WFK42GM quad-core processor is no different. At 3.1GHz, the X4-645 becomes the fastest Athlon-II quad-core processor on the market. Similar to previous Athlon-II X4 series release, the release of the X4-645 will also push the price of its predecessor, the X4-640 to under $100, making quad-core processing at 3.0GHz an affordable option for many users. Benchmark Reviews as been there for the release of many of the most recent Athlon-II and Phenom-II processors and we wouldn't miss the chance to bring you the test results on the latest Athlon-II quad-core release. In this article, Benchmark Reviews has prepared an in-depth look as the Athlon-II X4-645 ADX645WFK42GM quad-core processor and compares it to a wide-variety of other processors on the market.

At Benchmark Reviews, we have also found the Athlon-II series of processors to be great at overclocking. This is something very nice for computer enthusiasts looking to pull every last MHz out of their systems. With relatively recent restrictions by both AMD and Intel on the way we overclock, it's good to see that not all of our options have been stripped from us. Many motherboard manufactures have begun putting new features into their BIOS that allow for easy increases in bus speed and core CPU voltage. Since only special (and therefore usually more expensive) processors such as AMD's Black Edition CPUs or Intel's Extreme Edition CPUs come with unlocked multipliers, the ability to increase the bus speed is one of the few ways left to push a processor to its limits.

The Athlon-II series, including the Athlon-II X4-645 we are looking at in this article, doesn't have any Black Edition processors. Still, the increasing yields and release of continuously higher clocked versions of older Athlon-II processors has made for some Athlon-II CPUs that can withstand the strain of overclocking better than ever.

The Athlon-II X4-645 is a descendant of AMD's most affordable line of quad-core processors, directly following the 3.0GHz Athlon-II X4-640 and becoming the fastest Athlon-II quad-core available at 3.1GHz. The 100MHz increase in bus speed is really the only new feature of the Athlon-II X4-645, which represents about a 3% increase in clock speed over its predecessor. In the past, we have been able to overclock Athlon-II processors to anywhere between 3.7GHz and over 4.0GHz stably on air cooling alone. We have obviously looked forward to testing the new Athlon-II X4-645 and hope that it will not disappoint, not only in the overclocking arena, but also in regular performance. The X4-640 was able to outperform many of its rival CPUs at similar and sometimes even higher price points without increasing the clock speed at all. Surely the X4-645 will provide similar performance capabilities.

With the August Steam Hardware Survey showing us that less than 6% of gamers are using DX11 compatible systems, we are taking this opportunity to bring you a review focused at discovering the performance increase, if any, of upgrading just one piece of equipment, your CPU. Many of the review articles I read make me feel as though the performance they offer are just too far out of reach because it will require nearly a complete system overhaul in order to see the increased levels of performance with the new equipment. The Athlon-II X4-645 is compatible with both the AM2+ and AM3 motherboards, making it DDR2 and DDR3 compliant. Using a high-end DX10 video card in this review can help show the performance increase available for those of us who may need to upgrade just one piece at a time.

The Athlon-II X4-645 ADX645WFK42GM in this review will be tested against its predecessor, the X4-640, as well as two other Athlon-II processors, the X2-260 and the X3-445. This will give us a good overview of the scaling of dual, triple, and quad-core members of the Athlon-II family. Furthermore, a Phenom-II dual core processor will be tested along with Athlon-II CPUs to see what difference, if any, the existence of an L3 cache brings to the table. Results from recent tests of a couple of Intel Core i5 processors, the 655K and the 680, will be included to show performance across the platforms available. Finally, a Core i7-920 will round out our review, giving us a view of the relative high-end of quad core processing.

Let's move in and take a look at some of the features and specifications of the Athlon-II X4-645 ADX645WFK42GM AM3 quad-core processor.

Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices
Product Name: Athlon-II X4-645
Model Number: ADX645WFGMBOX (Retail) ADX645WFK42GM (OEM)
Price As Tested:$125.99 at NewEgg

Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by Advanced Micro Devices.

Athlon-II X4 AM3 Features

AMD Direct Connect Architecture

An award-winning technology designed to reduce bottlenecks that can exist when multiple components compete for access to the processor bus. Competing x86 systems use a single front-side bus (FSB) which must carry memory access, graphics, and I/O traffic. Eliminate the FSB, and you can reduce delays that competing access requests can cause.

45 nm Process Technology with Immersion Lithography

More efficient process technology with cutting-edge lithographic performance puts more transistors in less space.

AMD Wide Floating Point Accelerator

Doubles processor bandwidth from 64- to a full 128-Bit Floating-Point math processing pipeline that can double many of the bandwidth paths that help keep it full.

AMD Digital Media XPress 2.0 Technology

Provides support for SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, and MMX instructions for digital media applications and security.

CPU Architectural Features

True Multi-Core Processing

The extensive AMD64 architectural optimizations and features enable thorough integration of multiple cores within the same processor, with each core having its own L1 and L2 caches.

AMD Dedicated Multi-Cache

Each core has its own dedicated L2 cache, which enables simultaneous independent core access to L2 cache, eliminating the need for cores to arbitrate for cache access. This helps reduce latency on L2 cache accesses.

AMD Virtualization (AMD-V) Technology

Silicon feature-set enhancements designed to improve the performance, reliability, and security of both existing and future virtualization environments.

AMD PowerNow! 3.0 Technology

The latest power management technologies that deliver performance on demand when you need it, and power savings when you don't.

HyperTransport 3.0 Technology

Third-generation HyperTransportTM interface improves performance, supporting transfer speeds up to 4.4GT/s.

Simultaneous 32-bit and 64-bit Computing

AMD64 technology enables a breakthrough approach to 64-bit computing that doubles the number of registers in the processor and allows PC users to use today's 32-bit software applications while enabling them to also use the next generation of 64-bit applications.

Cool'n'Quiet 3.0 Technology

Up to eight different performance states help enhance power efficiency. Simplified performance state transitions can reduce latency and the software overhead of performance state changes.

AMD Dynamic Power Management

Each processor core, and the integrated memory controller and HyperTransportTM controller, is powered by dedicated voltage planes.

Integrated Dual-Channel Memory Controller

Directly connects the processor to memory for optimum performance, low latency, and high throughput.

Multi-Point Thermal Control

The next-generation design features multiple on-die thermal sensors with digital interface. Automatic reduction of p-state when temperature exceeds pre-defined limit. Additional memory thermal management interface.

AMD CoolCore Technology

Coarse and fine transistor control that can automatically reduce processor energy consumption by turning off unused parts of the processor.

ADX645WFGMBOX Specifications

• Model Number & Core Frequency: X4-645 @ 3.1GHz
• TRAY OPN# ADX645WFGMBOX
• PIB OPN# ADX645WFGMBOX
• L1 Cache Sizes: 64K of L1 instruction and 64K of L1 data cache per core (384KB total L1 per processor)
• L2 Cache Sizes: 512KB of L2 data cache per core (1.5MB total L2 per processor)
• Memory Controller Type: Integrated 128-bit wide memory controller *
• Memory Controller Speed: 2.0GHz with Dual Dynamic Power Management
• Types of Memory Supported: Support for unregistered DIMMs up to PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066MHz) -AND- PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333MHz)
• HyperTransport 3.0 Specification: One 16-bit/16-bit link @ up to 4.0GHz full duplex (2.0GHz x2)
• Total Processor-to-System Bandwidth: Up to 37.3 GB/s bandwidth [Up to 21.3 GB/s total bandwidth (DDR3-1333) + 16.0GB/s (HT3)]
• Packaging: Socket AM3 938-pin organic micro pin grid array (micro-PGA)
• Fab location: GLOBALFOUNDRIES Fab 1 Module 1
• Process Technology: 45-nanometer DSL SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology
• Approximate Die Size: 169 mm2
• Approximate Transistor count: ~ 300 million
• Max Temp: 71 Celsius
• Core Voltage: 1.05-1.4V
• Max TDP: 95 Watts
• AMD Codename: "Propus"
• MSRP: $122

  *Note: configurable for dual 64-bit channels for simultaneous read/writes

Closer Look: Athlon-II X4-640

Let's get in close for a look at the new Athlon-II X4-645. The X4-645 is built on the Propus die. The Propus die is used for the Athlon-II X4 quad-core chips and is 169mm2. It's built on a 45nm process and has around 300 million transistors. The TDP (thermal design power/point) of the Athlon-II X4-645, as well as all Athlon-II X3 and X4 processors, is 95 Watts. Just to be clear here, the TDP isn't the amount of power the CPU is capable of pulling. It is the maximum amount of power dissipated by the processor under normal circumstances. It isn't the max amount of power that the processor can consume, as overclocking and other circumstances might cause the CPU to draw more power that it's TDP. The 95W TDP on the Athlon-II X3 and X4 chips is higher than the 65W TDP for the Athlon-II X2 series, but it is still much lower than the up to 140W TDP found on the high end Phenom processors.

AMD has been making the Athlon-II processors for quite a while now. Global Foundries, the chip manufacturer, has gotten better and better and making these chips so that they don't have many errors. With this higher yield comes more stability in the processors and an overall higher quality chip. Since the inception of the Phenom-II and Athlon-II chips, AMD has consistently released new CPUs that are just higher clocked versions of the older chips they are replacing. The Athlon-II X4-645 is 100MHz faster than the Athlon-II X4-640, which will now become AMDs four core budget poster boy at just under $100.

A couple of things about the way AMD operates makes the Athlon-II X4-645 and all Athlon-II and even dual and triple-core Phenom-II processors quite interesting to toy around with. AMD isn't very keen on throwing away processor. Because of this, if one section of the processor fails testing, AMD will use the good parts of the processor and re-sell it as a lower model. For example, the Athlon-II X3 series of chips are all known as Rana chips. The Rana chips are built on a Propus die, but one of the cores is disabled, making it a triple-core rather than a quad-core. While this usually happens because one of the four cores didn't withstand the quality assurance testing it was put through, occasionally a chip's disabled cores will operate just fine. In the 700 series AMD motherboard southbridge chipsets, there was a feature called advanced clock calibration that could potentially unlock undamaged disabled cores. In the 800 series chipsets this feature was disabled, but many motherboard manufactures came up with their own ways of unlocking the cores. ASUS 800 series motherboards may come with a switch on the board that will allow for core unlocking, Biostar added a feature it calls Core UnlocKING into it's bios, and ASRock has a feature called UCC (Unlock CPU Cores) that it has with it's 800 series motherboards.

The chances here with the Athlon-II X4-645 or any other Athlon-II X4 chip are very slim that it will have the ability to unlock anything. The only real possibility would be if a processor built on the Deneb die has all four functioning cores, but the L3 cache didn't pass testing. In this case, AMD could disable the L3 cache and ship the CPU out as an Athlon-II X4 chip. Alternatively, there could be the possibility of a six-core Thuban processor having one or two bad cores AND a bad L3 cache, but again, the chances are very slim. As we talked about earlier, AMD is having better yields with their processors recently, which severely cuts down the chances that many processors are made and distributed with bad cores. That helps increase the chances that an X3 processor or even an X2 might have unlockable cores, but only slightly. Regardless of the chances of success, we are enthusiasts here at Benchmark Reviews. Getting a CPU for testing and not trying to unlock it is just against our nature. Unfortunately, when I tried to unlock any hidden cache on the Athlon-II X4-645 we received for testing, there was nothing there. The chip is a normal functioning quad-core processor built on the Propus die. As a side note, there is a very easy way of checking whether or not your Athlon-II processor was built on a Propus or a Deneb die, so you can know before hand whether or not there might be a chance of unlocking an L3 cache. It has to do with the numbering of the chip itself. If you look on the top of the chip, under the part number, there will be a series of letters. They will say either AACXX AC or AADXX AD. If it says AAC, then you have a chip built on a Deneb die. If it says AAD, your chip is a Propus. As you can see, our chip says AADHC AD, making it a Propus die. There is definitely no hidded cache here.

Even without the possibility of an unlocked L3 cache, the Athlon-II X4-645 still represents an excellent opportunity for us to have some fun. Though not a black edition processor, I have high expectations of the overclock ability of the Athlon-II X4-645 from experimentation with previous Athlon-II series processors. Everything from the Athlon-II X2 chips up through the X4 chips have been able to get close to 4.0GHz with only air cooling, providing a sizeable increase in performance.

When released, the Athlon-II X4-645 will be AMDs flagship Athlon-II processor and the fastest Athlon-II quad-core available at 3.1GHz. The X4-645 replaces the X4-640 at this position, pushing the prices of all the other Athlon-II X4 processors down lower. The X4-645 will support the same types and speeds of RAM as the X4-640 with DDR2 support at 1066MHz and DDR3 support at 1333MHz. Many RAM kits are now available at much higher speeds than this, but I wouldn't worry. In our test machine, we are using a 1600MHz DDR3 dual-channel kit, and it works just fine. For testing, I dropped the speed of the RAM to 1333MHz to match the RAM being used in the Core i7 test machine. The stock bus speed for the Athlon-II X4-645 also stays the same, and matches all the other Athlon-II and Phenom-II chips at 200MHz with a 2000MHz HT Link speed. Since our CPU doesn't have an unlocked multiplier (only Black Edition AMD CPUs do), we will be increasing the bus speed in order to push our X4-645 to higher clock speeds. The memory controller on the Athlon-II X4-645 matches the HT Link speed at 2000MHz and can be configured as either one 128-bit channel or two 64-bit channels. Like the other Athlon-II chips we have seen, the X4-645 will come with full virtualization support through AMD-V technology. This won't affect most of us, but if you or your business needs to run Windows 7 in XP mode, this will come in handy.

As I mentioned above, the Athlon-II series of processors has proven to be great at overclocking, and we expect the same out of the X4-645. We were able to push the predecessor to this processor, the Athlon-II X4-640, to 3.8GHz on air cooling where it remained stable throughout our stressing and testing. The Athlon-II X4-645 was a little bit trickier and required a little more handling, but we were able to get it stable at 3.8GHz as well.

Many of our readers have recently asked me about undervolting a CPU in order to make it as utility friendly as possible. Not much is getting cheaper these days, and the price of electricity is on the list of utilities that continue to increase in price and make our lives that much more stressful. When I CPU can run at stock speeds but on less voltage than it is set for, you will see a decrease in the amount of energy the processor uses. With the Athlon-II X4-645 processor, I was able to set the voltage to 1.2v, down from a normal 1.4v, and run it stably at the stock speed of 3.1GHz.

I started off overclocking the Athlon-II X4-645 by gradually increasing the bus speed until I could no longer boot into Windows. Since the multiplier on the X4-645 is locked at x15.5, I can't boost the multiplier to overclock the CPU. It is important to note, however, that the multiplier can still be decreased down as far as x4. Because of this, it is possible to decrease the multiplier and increase the bus speed and voltage and still maintain and stable overclock. Focusing on the bus speed, I was able to get the Athlon-II X4-645 to 3.72GHz without adding any voltage to the CPU or Northbridge at all. This put the bus speed at 240MHz and while the test machine was able to enter windows at this speed and get a screenshot of CPUZ, the processor wasn't stable enough to withstand our stressing. An overview of CPU overclock stressing that is conducted before running benchmarks can be found in the Test Methodology section of this article. After reaching 3.72GHz without adding voltage, I increased the voltage first to 1.5v and then to 1.6v to push the processor even farther. By leaving the multiplier at x15.5, I was not able to get any than that same 3.72GHz and have the processor remain stable. I wasn't comfortable leaving it at that level, however, considering I got the X4-640 to overclock to 3.8GHz. Every processor is different, and certainly another X4-645 or X4-640 would have had different results than the ones I used. But just to see, I started bringing the multiplier down by x0.5 at a time and slowly increasing the bus speed. I finally reached the maximum that I seemed like I was going to be able to get at 3.842GHz. I bumped the multiplier down to x14.5 and increased the bus speed to 265 while keeping the voltage at 1.6v in order to reach this level. Like I said, every processor is different, and you are likely to get a different result even if testing another Athlon-II x4-645. For example, when I tested the Athlon-II X3-445, which is built on the same die as the X4-645 and has the same clock speed of 3.1GHz, I was able to overclock it 4.1GHz. All of my overclocking and testing was done solely with air cooling. I used the Scythe Mugen-II CPU Cooler which consistently scores very high on Benchmark Review's CPU Cooler Best Of series.

Testing and Results

Before I begin any benchmarking or overclocking, I thoroughly stress the CPU and memory by running Prime95 on all available cores for 12 hours. If no errors are found, I move on to a gaming stress test. To do this, I use Prime95 again to stress the processor, while running an instance of FurMark's stability test on top of this. If the computer survives this test for 2 hours without lockup or corruption, I consider it to be stable and ready for overclocking. After achieving what I feel is stable overclock, I run to these tests again for certainty. The goal of this stress testing is to ensure the clock speeds and settings are stable before performing any benchmarks. I adopted this method from another writer here at Benchmark Reviews and it seems to do a great job of flushing out what only seem to be stable overclocks.

Once the hardware is prepared, we begin our testing. Each benchmark test program begins after a system restart, and the very first result for every test will be ignored since it often only caches the test. This process proves extremely important in the many gaming benchmarks, as the first run serves to cache maps allowing subsequent tests to perform much better than the first. Each test is completed five times, with the average results displayed in our article.

For this review of the Athlon-II X4-645 CPU, the following test systems and comparison processors were used. The X4-645 was tested against in predecessor, of course, as well as the Athlon-II X2-260 at 3.0GHz and the Athlon-II X3-445 at 3.1GHz. Additionally, we will compare this new king of Athlon-II quad-cores to a similarly priced but less expensive Phenom-II X2-560BE processor. For comparison, a now aging Intel Core i7-920 was tested as well and our scores will be compared to test results from the Intel Core i5-680 and i5-655K processors. With the amazing results we got out of the Athlon-II X4-640 quad-core CPU, we fully expect the X4-645 to perform very well, especially when overclocked.

Intel X58 Test Platform

• Processor: 2.66GHz Intel Core i7 920 Bloomfield/Nehalem BX80601920 ($280)
• Motherboard: MSI X58 Pro LGA1366 Intel X58 ATX
• System Memory: Kingston 6GB (3 x 2GB) KVR1333D3K3/6GR DDR3 1333MHz (PC3 10666) (CL7-7-7-20)
• Video: MSI N285GTX-T2D1G-OC NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB
• Disk Drive 1: OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT30G 30GB SSD
• Disk Drive: SEAGATE Barracuda ST31500341AS 1.5TB SATA
• Optical Drive: ASUS DRW-24B1ST DVD Burner
• PSU: Corsair CMPSU-850TX 850W
• Enclosure: NZXT GAMMA
• Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium x64

AMD Socket AM3 Test System

• Processor: 3.1GHz AMD Athlon-II X4-645 ADX645WFGMBOX (MSRP $122)
• Processor: 3.3GHz AMD Phenom-II X2-560BE HDZ560WFK2DGM (MSRP $105)
• Processor: 3.0GHz AMD Athlon-II X4-640 ADX640WFK42GM (MSRP $99)
• Processor: 3.2GHz AMD Athlon-II X2-260 ADX260OCK23GM (MSRP $76)
• Processor: 3.1GHz AMD Athlon-II X3-445 ADX445WFK32GM (MSRP $87)
• Motherboard: ASUS M4A785TD-M EVO 785G Motherboard with 128MB Sideport Memory
• System Memory: 2x2GB Patriot Gamer Series DDR3 (1333MHz@7-7-7-21)
• Video: MSI N285GTX-T2D1G-OC NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB; Onboard ATI Radeon HD 4290
• Disk Drive 1: OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT30G 30GB SSD
• Disk Drive: SEAGATE Barracuda ST31500341AS 1.5TB SATA
• Optical Drive: ASUS DRW-24B1ST DVD Burner
• PSU: Corsair CMPSU-850TX 850W
• Enclosure: NZXT GAMMA
• Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium x64

Intel P55 Test Platform

• Processor: 3.2GHz Intel Core i5 655K Unlocked CPU
• Processor: 3.6GHz Intel Core i5 680 CPU
• Motherboard: ASUS Maximus III Formula P55 Motherboard
• System Memory: 2x2GB G.Skill ECO Series DDR3 (1333MHz @ 7-7-7-20)
• Video: Powercolor ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB
• Disk Drive 1: OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G 60GB SSD
• Disk Drive 2: SEAGATE Barracuda 1TB SATA
• PSU: Antec Signature 850W
• Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Benchmark Applications

• EVEREST Ultimate Edition v5.50 by Lavalys
• Passmark PerformanceTest v7.0
• PCMark Vantage v1.0.2.0 by Futurmark Corporation
• SiSoft Sandra 2010.1.16.92
• Cinebench v11.5
• Resident Evil 5 Benchmark
• Devil May Cry 4 Benchmark
• Street Fighter 4 Benchmark

EVEREST Benchmark Tests

Lavalys EVEREST is an industry leading system diagnostics and benchmarking solution for enthusiasts PC users, based on the award-winning EVEREST Technology. During system optimizations and tweaking it provides essential system and overclock information, advanced hardware monitoring and diagnostics capabilities to check the effects of the applied settings. CPU, FPU and memory benchmarks are available to measure the actual system performance and compare it to previous states or other systems. Furthermore, complete software, operating system and security information makes EVEREST a comprehensive system diagnostics tool that offers a total of 100 pages of information about your PC.

All of the benchmarks used in our test bed rely on basic x86 instructions and consume very low system memory while also being aware of HyperThreading, multi-processors, and multi-core processors. While the EVEREST CPU tests really only compare the processor performance more than it measures platforms, it still offers a glimpse into what kind of power each platform possesses.

Queen and Photoworxx tests are synthetic benchmarks that operate the function many times and over-exaggerate by several magnitudes what the real-world performance would be like. The Queen benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and misprediction penalties of the CPU. It does this by finding possible solutions to the classic queen problem on a chessboard. At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores.

Right out the gate, the Athlon-II X4-645 sits right where it should at the top of the Athlon-II CPUs. It's scores are just above those of it's predecessor. The Queen tests show the X4-645 as increasing in performance over the X4-640 by 3%. This is right in line with the 3% increase in processor speed from 3.0GHz to 3.1GHz. The core clocked X4-645 also pushes way past the higher clocked Phenom-II X2-560BE at 3.3GHz,even with its L3 cache, showing that the extra cores must have a good sized impact on the Queen test results. The Athlon-II X4-645 outperforms both Core i5 processors and comes within 1% of the score of the Core i7-920 processor. When overclocked, the 3.8GHz X4-645 steals the show with the highest Queen benchmark score of the bunch. A few things to note from looking at the Queen scores can tell us a little about the benchmark. It's obvious from the lower scores of the Phenom-II X2-560BE and the X4-645's relative closeness to the Core i7 score that the test doesn't depend much on an L3 cache. Also, while the X4-645 base score comes within 1% of the Core i7 score, we are comparing a 2.66GHz quad-core to a 3.1GHz quad-core in a test that doesn't weigh much on L3 cache and the 2.66GHz is coming out ahead.

Like the Queen benchmark, the Photoworxx tests for penalties against pipeline architecture. The synthetic Photoworxx benchmark stresses the integer arithmetic and multiplication execution units of the CPU and also the memory subsystem. Due to the fact that this test performs high memory read/write traffic, it cannot effectively scale in situations where more than two processing threads are used. The EVEREST Photoworxx benchmark performs the following tasks on a very large RGB image:

• Fill
• Flip
• Rotate90R (rotate 90 degrees CW)
• Rotate90L (rotate 90 degrees CCW)
• Random (fill the image with random colored pixels)
• RGB2BW (color to black & white conversion)
• Difference
• Crop

The Photoworxx test tells a similar story, albeit with scores much closer together. The 3% faster clock speed of the Athlon-II X4-645 can only push out a marginally better score than the X4-640, one that is well within the margin of error. For that matter, the Athlon-II X3-445 triple-core processor is right up there with the bunch and Phenom-II X2-560BE with only two cores doesn't lag very far behind. It seems that the L3 cache might have more of a role in the Photoworxx test. The Athlon-II X4-645 comes out ahead of the Core i5-655K but the Core i5-680 is not so easily cowed. While the Core i7 was only 1% ahead of the X4-645 in the Queen test, it jumps ahead of the Athlon-II quad-core by 36% in the Photoworxx test. Even overclocked to 3.8GHz, the Athlon-II X4-645 barely ekes out a win over the Core i5-680 and still lags behind the i7-920.

The Zip Library test measures combined CPU and memory subsystem performance through the public ZLib compression library. ZLib is designed as a free lossless data compression library for use on virtually any computer hardware and operating system. The ZLib data format is itself portable across platforms and has a footprint independent of input data that can be reduced at some cost in compression.

In the ZLib integer test, the Athlon-II X4-645 again comes out just over 3% ahead of the X4-640, which is right where it should be. Similar to the Queen tests, the Athlon-II X4-645 also outperforms the dual-core Phenom-II X2-560BE processor and both the Core i5-655K and i5-680 Intel processors. The X4-645 comes in about 12% behind the Core i7-920, which is to be expected. The X4-645 steals the show again when it is overclocked to 3.8GHz, even surpassing the Core i7-920 at its normal clock speed.

The AES integer benchmark measures CPU performance using AES data encryption. It utilizes Vincent Rijmen, Antoon Bosselaers and Paulo Barreto's public domain C code in ECB mode and consumes 48 MB of memory.

While I normally like to put both of the Everest integer performance tests on one graph, the Core i5 processors made that impossible this time. With the new Lynnfield series of processors, Intel made some major changes to the way their CPUs handle AES compression. This new processing is a boon to webmasters everywhere, as well as anyone who deals with compressed files on a regular basis. With that in mind, the two Core i5 processors completely destroy the competition in the AES test. The Athlon-II X4-645, while not competing in any way with the Core i5 processor, does outpace the Core i7 processor, even when both processors are at stock speeds.

The floating point tests take us straight back to the normal 3% increase in performance for the Athlon-II X4-645 over the X4-640. All three tests, the 32-bit, 64-bit, and 128-bit keep almost exactly the same interval as the Queen test and the ZLib test, lending validity to the tests. In both the Julia and Mandel tests, the Athlon-II X4-645 processor comes out on top of all the processors tested except for the Core i7-920, which lags behind by nearly 22% in the Julia test and about 15% in Mandel test. In the 128-bit Sin Julia test, the Athlon-II X4-640 processor tops the AMD CPUs, but all three Intel CPUs manage to score better until the Athlon-II X4-645 is overclocked to 3.8GHz. It appears that the 128-bit floating point Sin Julia test is better suited to Intel CPUs.

Passmark Performance Test

PassMark Performance Test is a PC hardware benchmark utility that allows a user to quickly assess the performance of their computer and compare it to a number of standard 'baseline' computer systems. The Passmark Performance Test CPU tests all benchmark the mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, and 3DNow! instructions of modern processors.

In our tests there were several areas of concentration for each benchmark, which are combined into one compound score. This score is referred to as the CPU Mark, and is a composite of the following tests: Integer Math, Floating Point Math, Find Prime Numbers, SSE/3DNow!, Compression, Encryption, Image Rotation, and String Sorting. For this review, we've also decided to run the memory benchmark, which results in a composite score based on the following tests: small block allocation, cached read, uncached read, write performance, and large block allocation.

In the CPU test suite for Passmark, the Athlon-II X4-645 comes out on top of all the AMD processors again, but only slightly. In fact, the X4-640 scores within the margin of error, there is less than a 1% difference between the two scores. This is the case between the Athlon-II X4-645 processor and the Intel Core i5-680 processor as well. The Core i5 comes out just a few points ahead of the X4-645. In the Passmark CPU test, unlike many of the Everest tests, even the overclocked Athlon-II X4-645 at 3.8GHz can't reach the score of the Core i7-920. Of course, at twice the price, the Core i7-920 doesn't have that great of a lead.

PCMark Vantage Benchmark Tests

PCMark Vantage is an objective hardware performance benchmark tool for PCs running 32- and 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7. PCMark Vantage is well suited for benchmarking any type of Microsoft Windows Vista/7 PC: from multimedia home entertainment systems and laptops, to dedicated workstations and high-end gaming rigs. Benchmark Reviews has decided to use a few select tests from the suite to demonstrate simulated real-world processor usage in this article. Our tests were conducted on 64-bit Windows 7, with results displayed in the chart below.

TV and Movies Suite

• TV and Movies 1 (CPU=50%, RAM=2%, GPU=45%, SSD=3%)
  • Two simultaneous threads
  • Video transcoding: HD DVD to media server archive
  • Video playback: HD DVD w/ additional lower bitrate HD content from HDD, as downloaded from net
• TV and Movies 2 (CPU=50%, RAM=2%, GPU=45%, SSD=3%)
  • Two simultaneous threads
  • Video transcoding: HD DVD to media server archive
  • Video playback, HD MPEG-2: 19.39 Mbps terrestrial HDTV playback
• TV and Movies 3 (SSD=100%)
  • HDD Media Center
• TV and Movies 4 (CPU=50%, RAM=2%, GPU=45%, SSD=3%)
  • Video transcoding: media server archive to portable device
  • Video playback, HD MPEG-2: 48 Mbps Blu-ray playback

Gaming Suite*

• Gaming 1 (CPU=30%, GPU=70%)
  • GPU game test
• Gaming 2 (SSD=100%)
  • HDD: game HDD
• Gaming 3 (CPU=75%, RAM=5%, SSD=20%)
  • Two simultaneous threads
  • CPU game test
  • Data decompression: level loading
• Gaming 4 (CPU=42%, RAM=1%, GPU=24%, SSD=33%)
  • Three simultaneous threads
  • GPU game test
  • CPU game test
  • HDD: game HDD

Music Suite

• Music 1 (CPU=50%, RAM=3%, GPU=13%, SSD=34%)
  • Three simultaneous threads
  • Web page rendering - w/ music shop content
  • Audio transcoding: WAV -> WMA lossless
  • HDD: Adding music to Windows Media Player
• Music 2 (CPU=100%)
  • Audio transcoding: WAV -> WMA lossless
• Music 3 (CPU=100%)
  • Audio transcoding: MP3 -> WMA
• Music 4 (CPU=50%, SSD=50%)
  • Two simultaneous threads
  • Audio transcoding: WMA -> WMA
  • HDD: Adding music to Windows Media Player

* EDITOR'S NOTE: Hopefully our readers will carefully consider how relative PCMark Vantage is as "real-world" benchmark, since many of the tests rely on unrelated hardware components. For example, per the FutureMark PCMark Vantage White Paper document, Gaming test #2 weighs the storage device for 100% of the test score. In fact, according to PCMark Vantage the video card only impacts 23% of the total gaming score, but the CPU represents 37% of the final score. As our tests in this article (and many others) has already proven, gaming performance has a lot more to do with the GPU than the CPU, and especially more than the hard drive or SSD (which is worth 38% of the final gaming performance score).

The PCMark Vantage test results seem to favor slightly the Intel processors over the AMD processors, but after a quick price comparison, we can see why. The Athlon-II X4-645 is scheduled to be released at an MSRP of $122, about $77 less than the i5-655K. Both the i5-680 and the i7-920 cost near $300, considerably more than the Athlon-II X4-645. In the TV and Movies tests, the Athlon-II X4-645 comes in just 34 points behind the i5-655K, less than a 1% difference. It falls farther behind when compared to the higher-end Intel processors. Also, when overclocked to 3.8GHz, the Athlon-II X4-645 doesn't really show that much of an increase in performance in the TV and Movies test suite. The reason might be more apparent when we look at the composition of the TV and Movies test suite. The CPU is never weighted for more than 50% of any of the tests and only the SSD is weighted in the third test in the suite.

The Gaming test suite is scaled nearly identically to the TV and Movies, with the Athlon-II X4-645 topping the AMD processors and falling just barely behind the Intel i5-655K. The i5-680 really steals the show here, and it's probably due in large part to the Radeon HD 5850 since the GPU is weighted pretty highly in the Gaming benchmarks. In truth, as we will discuss later in the Video Game Benchmarks, the GPU should probably be weighed a lot higher in the Gaming tests. Nearly any CPU will provide adequate gaming performance when paired with the right GPU.

The Music suite is the only PCMark Vantage test suite that varies slightly in scaling here. Interestingly enough, it is also the test suite that most highly weighs the CPU in its benchmarks. In the Music suite, the Athlon-II X4-645 compares most closely with the i5-680, and only falls slightly behind the i5-655K. When overclocked to 3.8GHz, the Athlon-II X4-645 tops all of the CPUs on the chart, showing nearly a 6% performance gain over the i7-920. That's not bad at all for a $122 processor. Of course, we did have to push it to the limit to get it there.

SiSoftware Sandra

SiSoftware Sandra (the System ANalyser, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant) is an information & diagnostic utility. It should provide most of the information (including undocumented) you need to know about your hardware, software and other devices whether hardware or software.

It works along the lines of other Windows utilities, however it tries to go beyond them and show you more of what's really going on. Giving the user the ability to draw comparisons at both a high and low-level. You can get information about the CPU, chipset, video adapter, ports, printers, sound card, memory, network, Windows internals, AGP, PCI, PCI-X, PCIe (PCI Express), database, USB, USB2, 1394/Firewire, etc.

The SANDRA DhryStone and Whetstone tests are CPU tests that run completely within the CPU + cache memory itself. These tests are perfect for seeing general efficiency per processing core. Dhrystone is basically a suite of arithmetic and string manipulating programs and is an older CPU tests. Even so, it remains a simple and accurate way to show RAW CPU processing performance. The whetstone benchmark primarily measures floating-point arithmetic performance.

The Athlon-II X4-645 experiences a rather large 12% increase in performance over the older X4-640 in the Dhrystone tests. The Dhrystone appears to scale pretty normally based on the price of the processors, and the Athlon-II processors stair-step accordingly in the test scores. The Athlon-II X4-645 sits atop the list of AMD processors but it would appear that the Sandra series of CPU Arithmetic tests prefers Intel processors. The Athlon-II X4-645 narrowly outperforms the Core i5-655K, but the both the i5-680 and, of course, the i7-920 score quite a bit higher than the X4-645.

The Whetstone tests show a similar result, but the increase from the Athlon-II X4-640 to the X4-645 is back at the veritable 3%. Again, the X4-645 sits right between the two Core i5 processors and well below the Core i7-920. Even overclocked, the X4-645 only barely edges ahead of the Core i5-680 and still lags by a large margin behind the Core i7.

Cinebench R11.5 Benchmarks

Maxon Cinebench is a real-world test suite that assesses the computer's performance capabilities. Cinebench is based on Maxon's award-winning animation software, Cinema 4D, which is used extensively by studios and production houses worldwide for 3D content creation. Maxon software has been used in blockbuster movies such as Spider-Man, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia and many more. Cinebench Release 11.5 includes the ability to more accurately test the industry's latest hardware, including systems with up to 64 processor threads and the testing environment better reflects the expectations of today's production demands. A more streamlined interface makes testing systems and reading results incredibly straightforward.

The Cinebench R11.5 test scenario uses all of a system's processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene, "No Keyframes" the viral animation by AixSponza. This scene makes use of various algorithms to stress all available processor cores. The OpenGL graphics card testing procedure uses a complex 3D scene depicting a car chase with which the performance of your graphics card in OpenGL mode is measured. During the benchmark tests the graphics card is evaluated by way of displaying an intricate scene that includes complex geometry, high-resolution textures, and a variety of effects to evaluate the performance across a variety of real-world scenarios.

The Cinebench R11.5 test has, like the Passmark tests, also been somewhat recently updated, though most of our recent Athlon-II testing has used R11.5. The scoring table for the 11.5 release has been scaled back dramatically from that of previous releases, so you can't compare scores at all between the different releases.

In the CPU Single Core tests, Cinebench focuses on a single thread of processing, so all of the AMD CPU scores are based nearly completely on their clock speeds. You can see this clearly from the results if you exclude the Core i5 processors. The Athlon-II X4-645 at 3.1GHz sits just above the Athlon-II X4-640 at 3.0GHz and, oddly enough, just below the X3-445 CPU also at 3.1GHz. All three sit below the X2-260 at 3.2GHz and again, all those are below the Phenom-II X2-560BE at 3.3GHz. The Intel processors seem to be preferred even by the Single Core Cinebench test. That may have something to do with the multi-thread capabilities that the Intel CPUs have, as that is also evident in the Multi-Core Cinebench test. In the Single Core test, all the Intel scores are quite a bit above the Athlon-II X4-640 CPU.

In the Multi-Core Cinebench test the Intel CPUs can take advantage of multi-threading so the Core i7's four cores turn into eight threads, giving it a much higher score than anything else in this test best. The Multi-Core test also brings out the true performance of the $120 Athlon-II X4-645 and this time it easily scores higher than both of the Core i5 CPUs. When overclocked to 3.8GHz, the Athlon-II X4-645 still can reach the Core i5 processors in the Single Core test, but inches ever closer to the Core i7 in the Multi-Core test. Not bad for a relatively inexpensive processor with no L3 cache.

Video Game Benchmarks

PC-based video games can depend heavily on the CPU if the attached GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) is less powerful, or the graphics settings are configured so low that they create no strain on the video card and must rely purely on system processing speed; a phenomenon known as CPU-dependence. The opposite is true when the video game has a powerful video card installed, and can handle all graphical demands without receiving assistance from the CPU. Benchmark Reviews has proven consistently that, with a high end GPU in use, frame rates are not often noticeably impacted by changes in processor or RAM. Since it is unlikely that someone spending enough money to buy a top-of-the-line graphics card would settle for the Athlon-II X4-640 as their gaming processor, we have decided to use Radeon HD 4200 with 128MB of DDR3 SidePort Memory, the ATI on-board video solutions provided with the ASUS M4A785TD-M EVO motherboard for these gaming tests.

It is important to realize, however, that the Athlon-II X2, X3 and X4 processors can all be used to play modern games, and even at very high settings. The only way to do this, however, is through the purchase of a high end graphics card. While the most likely purchasers of the Athlon-II X3-445 will not be high end gamers, it is feasible that some people might want to play the latest games, but have a budget that limits them to either a high end processor, or a high end graphics card. For this reason, we have included here the results of the gaming tests with the MSI NVIDIA GTX 285 GPU. There are other cards as well, such as some of the Radeon HD 5xxx cards, that will provide enough power to play these games even with an entry level processor. In these cases, the GPU is doing most of the work for the game, and the processor is much less involved.

Devil May Cry 4 was released for the PC platform in early 2007 as the fourth installment to the Devil May Cry video game series. DMC4 is a direct port from the PC platform to console versions, which operate at the native 720P game resolution with no other platform restrictions. Devil May Cry 4 uses the refined MT Framework game engine, which has been used for many popular Capcom game titles over the past several years.

MT Framework is an exclusive seventh generation game engine built to be used with games developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and PC ports. MT stands for "Multi-Thread", "Meta Tools" and "Multi-Target". Originally meant to be an outside engine, but none matched their specific requirements in performance and flexibility. Games using the MT Framework are originally developed on the PC and then ported to the other two console platforms. On the PC version a special bonus called Turbo Mode is featured, giving the game a slightly faster speed, and a new difficulty called Legendary Dark Knight Mode is implemented. The PC version also has both DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 mode for Windows XP, Vista, and Widows 7 operating systems.

On the PC version of Resident Evil 5, both DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 modes are available for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista Operating Systems. Microsoft Windows 7 will play Resident Evil with backwards compatible Direct3D APIs. Resident Evil 5 is branded with the NVIDIA The Way It's Meant to be Played (TWIMTBP) logo, and receives NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision functionality enhancements. NVIDIA and Capcom offer the Resident Evil 5 benchmark demo for free download from their website, and Benchmark Reviews encourages visitors to compare their own results to ours.

Capcom's Street Fighter IV is part of the now-famous Street Fighter series that began in 1987. The 2D Street Fighter II was one of the most popular fighting games of the 1990s, and now gets a 3D face-lift to become Street Fighter 4. The Street Fighter 4 benchmark utility was released as a novel way to test your system's ability to run the game. It uses a few dressed-up fight scenes where combatants fight against each other using various martial arts disciplines. Feet, fists and magic fill the screen with a flurry of activity. Due to the rapid pace, varied lighting and the use of music this is one of the more enjoyable benchmarks.

Street Fighter IV uses a proprietary Capcom SF4 game engine, which is enhanced over previous versions of the game. In terms of 3D graphical demand, Street Fighter IV is considered very low-end for most desktop GPUs. While modern desktop computers with discrete graphics have no problem playing Street Fighter IV at its highest graphical settings, integrated and mobile GPUs have a difficult time producing playable frame rates with the lowest settings configured.

I'm not going to go into too much detail here explaining the very clear results of the video gaming tests. All of the processors in our test bed, including even the lowest-end Athlon-II X2-260, are capable of playing each of these video games without any problem at all. The lowest scores of all come in the Resident Evil 5 benchmark and are all around 60 FPS. As I mentioned above, with the common monitor refresh rate of 60Hz, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to notice a difference between 60 FPS and 90 FPS. Paired with a good GPU any of these processors, and certainly the Athlon-II X4-645, is capable of being a gaming processor. With new video cards being released all the time at more-affordable-than-ever prices, users should not feel like they have to get a super expensive processor in order to realize the full potential of most games. This may definitely change soon and games such as Mafia II with APEX PhysX and 3D will likely require not only a high-end GPU, but CPU to match. But focused on the vast majority of users who are not even compatible with DX11 hardware as of yet, these games and demands are still in the future. For now, nearly any CPU will do.

AMD Athlon-II X4 Final Thoughts

With the Athlon-II series of processors, AMD has clamped down on the entry-level CPU market with an iron grip. Built without any L3 cache at all, these processors are cheap. The Athlon-II X4 series brought quad-core processing to the sub-$100 level for the first time. Everyday computer users confined to a tight budget, which really characterizes the vast majority of users, can now afford to enter in to the world of quad-cores that many of us had only dreamed of before now. With a price so enticing, it is normal to doubt the quality and performance that could possibly come out of such a product. As we have seen clearly in our testing, however, those doubts are unfounded. The Athlon-II X4-645 easily competes with processors that are much more expensive.

In our testing, the i5-655K was the Intel processor most competitive with the Athlon-II X4-645 and it comes at a price nearly $75 more expensive than the $122 X4-645. The X4-645 is also a quad-core, compared to the dual-core i5-655K. The latter also has an unlocked multiplier similar to AMDs black edition CPUs making it a more likely candidate for overclocking. For me, however, the first and final comparison after the benchmarks have shown the numbers has to be price. When I see two processors competing so closely for dominance in each test, it comes down to cost, and the Athlon-II X4-645 has that in the bag. The only real disconcerting thought about the price of the Athlon-II X4-645 is the fact that it will now cost about $23 more than its predecessor while providing an average increase in performance of only about 3%. If anything can detract from the value of the X4-645, it's the X4-640.

Our gaming tests, as well as the rest of our benchmarks, show conclusively that the Athlon-II X4-645 is a processor that can do just about anything pretty well. It certainly isn't the best CPU available in any single event, but it will do any of the jobs we tested it for with good level of proficiency. Even without the L3 cache available on higher priced CPUs, the Athlon-II X4-645 offers the performance necessary to get the job done. A few weeks ago my little brother called me up to ask me some questions about the specifications of a new computer he wanted to buy. He had been using a laptop for quite a while and, now that he was getting into some of the newer games, wanted to get a desktop to allow him to play them with high quality graphics. He will be using his computer for other purposes as well, but the most resource intensive use will be for gaming. He doesn't have a lot of room in his budget for what would normally be considered a powerhouse gaming computer, so he asked me how he could bring the cost down. I told him immediately that he should buy an Athlon-II quad-core processor. The X4-645 had obviously not been released yet, so I told him to buy the X4-640. He paired the Athlon-II with a NVIDIA GTX460 and many other budget minded parts and hasn't had any complaints about the performance.

For our readers, I have the same suggestion. If you are looking for a way to save money but still get a lot of power, you should consider an Athlon-II X4-645 and the results you have seen from the benchmark testing we have conducted. Don't be afraid that you won't be able to play video games; your GPU will determine that. These Athlon-II quad-cores are the cheapest quad-cores available and offer plenty of bang for the buck. The overclocking isn't disappointing either. As an Intel user for most of my life, testing the Athlon-II series of processors has really allowed me a new perspective. I don't know how many of you remember when the first Pentium processors were being released by Intel but I was a computer technician back then. I had to send back AMD CPUs more than twice as often as Intel CPUs at that time. That really skewed my view of AMD processors and it wasn't until very recently that I started using them again. I am not disappointed at all that I did.

ADX645WFGMBOX Conclusion

As was evidenced by our test results, the Athlon-II X4-645 offers great performance for its price range. It competing very closely with processors costing a lot more. The most important thing, however, is just the simple fact that it can get the job done. Whether you are interested in gaming, productivity, or just simple web browsing and word processing, the Athlon-II X4-645 offers the ability to do it all. The lack of an L3 cache might hinder the Athlon-II X4-645 slightly in some areas, but it isn't terribly detrimental to the overall performance of the CPU. The performance of AMD entry-level processors has increased dramatically in the recent past and the Athlon-II X4-645 is further evidence of this. This processor is a great performer and deserves high marks in this category.

Like all the Athlon-II processors, the Athlon-II X4-645 is very well built. Proof of this can be seen by the continued release of Athlon-II processors at 100MHz intervals above the previous releases. This shows the stability and increasing yields of the Athlon-II processors, allowing for faster and faster releases. Another impressive feature of the construction of the Athlon-II X4-645 is its ability to withstand the rigorous testing I put it through. When looking for highest stable overclock I could find, the Athlon-II X4-645 literally spent days under huge amounts of pressure from Prime 95 and Furmark at the same time. Even after all of that stressing, the CPU still ran like a champ.

The Athlon-II X4-645 is a very well-rounded processor. It functions in both AM3 and AM2+ motherboards, making it easy to find something in any price range that is compatible. One of the things that AMD has been good at it is keeping compatibility between its updates in processors and chipsets. Rather than introducing a new socket for each new series of processors, the AM2+ and AM3 sockets cater to nearly all of the AMD processors now available. This means that users can upgrade slowly, one or two pieces at a time, rather than replacing the entire system at once. The Athlon-II X4-645 also functions in a huge variety of situations. It can be a gaming CPU, a work CPU, a student or family computer CPU, just about anything.

The Athlon-II X4-645, with its 45nm process and relatively low TDP of 95W, is an good overclocker. This is common amongst Athlon-II processors, especially the higher yield ones that being released now at faster clock speeds. The X4-645 is not a black edition processor, so we were working with a locked multiplier of 15.5. We could lower the multiplier through the BIOS, but not increase it. Even so, just using the bus speed and voltage, we were able to get the Athlon-II X3-445 to 3.8GHz cooled only with air using the Scythe Mugen II CPU cooler. (For more information on this cooler, check out Benchmark Review's 1st Quarter 2010 CPU Cooler Performance Review.) This represents nearly an 18% increase in the clock speed of the X4-645. A quad-core processor running at 3.8GHz represents a great contender in our benchmarks. In some cases, the overclocked Athlon-II X4-645 topped our charts. In fact, the entire Athlon-II line has proven to be very good at overclocking and represents a great starting point for any would-be enthusiast.

AMD's ADX445WFGMBOX retail kit is sold at NewEgg for $125.99, which is an extremely low price as far as quad-core processors are concerned. It's also the same price that the Athlon-II X4-640 was released at. That being said, I think $122 for this processor is a great value. The only thing that concerns me here is that the Athlon-II X4-640 is now set to be reduced in price to just $99. Most of our testing showed that the 3% increase in clock speed for the X4-645 translates almost directly to a 3% increase in performance. Both processors are similar in overclocking ability and the Athlon-II X4-645 really brings nothing new to the table other than a slight increase in stock clock speed. My concern is that the Athlon-II X4-640 is now a better value than the X4-645.

Pros:

Cons:

- $23 more than X4-640 for only a 3% increase in performance

Ratings:

• Performance: 9.00
• Construction: 9.50
• Functionality: 9.50
• Overclock: 9.10
• Value: 8.90

Final Score: 9.20 out of 10.

Excellence Achievement: Benchmark Reviews Golden Tachometer Award.

Questions? Comments? Benchmark Reviews really wants your feedback. We invite you to leave your remarks in our Discussion Forum.

Related Articles:

• XFX Radeon HD 5850 HD-585A-ZNFC
• MSI R6870 Radeon HD 6870 Video Card
• BlueAnt Supertooth 3 Bluetooth Handsfree Kit
• Xigmatek Achilles Plus SD1484 Heatsink
• Mad Catz CoD: Black Ops ProGaming Glasses
• AMD Athlon-II X4-640 CPU ADX640WFGMBOX
• Marvell 88SS9174-BJP2 SSD Processor
• Patriot Supersonic Magnum Flash Drive
• Best CPU Cooler Performance AMD Socket AM3 Preview
• CoolIT ECO A.L.C. ECO-R120 CPU Cooler