If you take into account the three cores, energy consumption is pretty reasonable. Although it uses more power than a Core 2 Duo E8500, that's logical enough as the latter has one fewer core to power. In practice, that gives results of a little over 115 W while idle and 157 W while active.
It's hard to just stick to measuring performance when you put this CPU up against the E8500. Intel's processor might be 8.5% faster on average, but the picture changes radically according to the task at hand. For example, the Athlon is more than at home encoding a x264 video: our test only took 6 minutes 58 minutes, while the E8500 took 8 m 50 s. On the other hand, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom allowed the Core 2 Duo to shine, clocking a time of 7 m 16 s to process a series of RAW photos and convert them to JPEG, compared to 8 m on the Athlon processor.
Click on the graph to see all of our results and compare this CPU to other models
With games, it's more immediately obvious that this CPU struggles, but it by no means performs badly. Playing Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead, it's just a little bit behind the E8500 but it's powerful enough for a mid-range graphics card. With World in Conflict, though, it is easily outclassed. Its top framerate of 36 fps pales in comparison to the 43 fps produced by its competitor.
|View Performance Index Table
- Reasonable energy consumption for a triple-core proceesor
- Performs well when encoding video
- Poor gaming performance
- No Turbo mode
This is an affordable processor if you're not looking to do a lot of gaming. It's great for applications and does well with software that can take advantage of its multiple cores.