Athlon II X2 240e and Athlon II X3 435 CPU Review

PCMark Vantage

PCMark Vantage simulates the use of real-world applications and gives scores for the following categories:

• PCMark
• Memories
• TV and Movies
• Gaming
• Music
• Communications
• Productivity
• HDD

For a detailed description of each one of these tests, please download and read the PCMark Vantage Reviewer’s Guide.
You can see the results for each category below. We are not going to compare the results for the Memories and HDD suites.

Comparing the results achieved using the on-board video, Athlon II X2 240e achieved a score 9.56% higher than its competitor, Celeron E3200. Athlon II X3 435 achieved a score 27.02% higher than its competitor, Pentium E5200. In fact, due to its higher clock, Athlon II X3 435 achieved a score 4.00% higher than Athlon II X4 620, achieving a score 20.56% higher than Athlon II X2 240 and 13.45% higher than Pentium E6300.
When we installed a GeForce 9600 GT the performance difference increased, with Athlon II X2 240e achieving a score 17.90% higher than its competitor, Celeron E3200, and with Athlon II X3 435 achieving a score 30.37% higher than its competitor, Pentium E5200. This CPU achieved a performance 14.79% higher than Athlon II X2 240e and 11.47% higher than Pentium E6300, achieving the same performance level as Athlon II X4 620.

On the TV and Movies benchmark with all systems using their on-board video, Intel CPUs were faster: Celeron E3200 achieved a performance level 3.99% higher than Athlon II X2 240e, and Pentium E5200 achieved a performance level 9.57% higher than Athlon II X3 435.
However this situation reversed when we installed a GeForce 9600 GT, because the performance from Intel CPUs didn’t increase, differently from what happened with the AMD CPUs. Under this scenario Athlon II X2 240e achieved a performance 8.43% higher than Celeron E3200 and Athlon II X3 435 achieved a performance 28.62% higher than Pentium E5200.

On the Gaming set with the on-board video enabled, Athlon II X2 240e was 25.39% faster than Celeron E3200 and Athlon II X3 435 was 28.61% faster than Pentium E5200. It is important to keep in mind that what we are measuring here is mostly the performance of the on-board video (AMD785G vs. Intel G45). The true CPU performance can only be measured with a “real” video card installed.
When we installed our GeForce 9600 GT Athlon II 240e was 15.52% faster than Celeron E3200 and Athlon II X3 435 was 24.64% faster than Pentium E5200.

On the Music benchmark with the on-board video enabled Athlon II X2 240e achieved a performance 4.06% higher than Celeron E3200, while Athlon II X3 435 achieved the same performance level as Pentium E5200.
When we installed a GeForce 9600 GT Athlon II X2 240e achieved a score 16.10% higher than Celeron E3200 and Athlon II X3 435 achieved a score 3.56% higher than Pentium E5200.

On the Communications tests with on-board video enabled Celeron E3200 achieved a performance 4.42% higher than Athlon II X2 240e, while Athlon II X3 435 achieved a performance level 32.36% higher than Pentium E5200.
When we installed a GeForce 9600 GT Athlon II X2 240e achieved a score 3.37% higher than Celeron E3200 and Athlon II X3 435 achieved a score 28.33% higher than Pentium E5200.

And finally on the Productivity benchmark Athlon II X2 240e achieved a score 37.95% higher than Celeron E3200 and Athlon II X3 435 achieved a score 19.89% higher than Pentium E5200.
When we installed a GeForce 9600 GT Athlon II X2 240e achieved a score 12.68% higher than Celeron E3200 and Athlon II X3 435 achieved a score 27.47% higher than Pentium E5200.