AMD Athlon II X2 240e & Athlon II X3 435 CPU Reviews

• EXTREME Overclocking: AMD Athlon II X3 435 & Athlon II X2 240e Processors Reviewed:
  
  

  "The Athlon II X3 435 really has Intel beat in the price range for the performance. The addition of the third core really helps out in multithreaded tasks when a dual core would be maxed out. Costing only $87, it's a great value. The Athlon II "energy efficient" chips have a little bit of a price premium to them, however with only a 45W TDP there are so many applications that would benefit from these types of chips."

  
  Click here to read the full review.
  
  
  
• Hardware Secrets: Athlon II X2 240e and Athlon II X3 435 CPU Review:
  
  

  "Athlon II X2 240e and Athlon II X3 435 are faster than similar-priced CPUs from Intel (with two exceptions, on Photoshop CS4 Intel CPUs were a little bit faster and on After Effects Celeron E3200 was 16% faster than Athlon II X2 240e, but Athlon II X3 435 was 12% faster than Pentium E5200).
  
  Athlon II X3 435 costs only USD 10 more than Athlon II 240e and its extra performance is worth well over USD 10 if you will eventually run programs that benefit from having an additional CPU processing core available, such as 3D modeling and video conversion."

  
  Click here to read the full review.
  
  
  
• HotHardware: AMD Athlon II X2 240e and X3 435 Mainstream CPUs :
  
  

  "Both of the new Athlon II processors we tested here performed as well as expected in our tests. For a low power, budget dual core processor, the X2 240e held its own against more expensive models, specifically in PCMark Vantage and Cinebench. Also, the similarly affordable X3 435 showed capable performance in most of the benchmarks we ran."

  
  Click here to read the full review.
  
  
  
• PCSTATS: AMD Athlon II X2 240e 2.8 GHz Energy Efficient Processor Reviewþ:
  
  

  "The 2.8GHz, $80 CDN ($77 USD, £50 GBP) Athlon II X2 240e takes this design approach even further, and its 45W TDP makes it one of the most efficient processors that PCSTATS has benchmarked. The only processor that used less electricity under load was AMD's Sempron 3600+ chip.
  
  With 2MB of L2 cache and no L3 cache at all, the performance of the Athlon II X2 240e isn't the fastest (in fact it was pretty consistently the slowest), but it remains fast enough for use in office applications and simple tasks like HD media decoding, while running applications like BitTorrent at the same time. It can handle pretty much everything you'd expect from an always-on office desktop computer."

  
  Click here to read the full review.
  
  
  
• PCSTATS: AMD Athlon II X3 435 2.9 GHz Socket AM3 Triple-Core Processor Review:
  

  " this scenario I think the Athlon II X3 435 makes the most sense. If you're on a budget and looking to retire an aging Athlon processor and move up to a more multi-threading friendly socket AM3 processor, this is an affordable route. Provided you have a compatible motherboard (AM2+/AM3 for certain but check the manufacturer's website before you purchase for AM2!) you'll find that the Athlon II X3 435 is a cost-effective upgrade. Just keep in mind that the Athlon II X2 250 and Athlon II X4 620 are around the same price, and could give you better performance in single or multi-threaded programs."

  
  Click here to read the full review.
  
  
  
• PureOverclock: AMD Athlon II X2 240e & Athlon II X3 435:
  
  

  "While AMD is not releasing any processors here based on wholly new architecture, the Athlon II X3 435 (try saying that in under 3 seconds), and the Athlon II X2 240e are welcome additions to the ranks of the value-minded Athlon II CPU family. The Athlon II X3 435 would belong in the setup of a budget minded gamer, or in the family PC of some folks who need a beefier CPU than the Athlon II X2 240e. However, due to the low TDP on the Athlon II X2 240e, it would make a better CPU in an HTPC, where less heat being produced would be a great thing to have. They're great overclockers, and are probably capable of hitting 4GHz on air cooling with a decent cooling solution, but are incapable of doing so on a 64 bit OS, which is unfortunate."

  
  Click here to read the full review.