AMD Athlon II X2 270 vs Intel Pentium G4560: What is the difference?
23points
AMD Athlon II X2 270
46points
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
64 facts in comparison
AMD Athlon II X2 270
Intel Pentium G4560
Why is AMD Athlon II X2 270 better than Intel Pentium G4560?
- 1.5MB bigger L2 cache?
2MBvs0.5MB - 128KB bigger L1 cache?
256KBvs128KB - 0.75MB/core more L2 cache per core?
1MB/corevs0.25MB/core
Why is Intel Pentium G4560 better than AMD Athlon II X2 270?
- 534MHz higher ram speed?
2400MHzvs1866MHz - 2 more CPU threads?
4vs2 - 18nm smaller semiconductor size?
14nmvs32nm - 1.8x higher PassMark result?
3531vs1966 - 11W lower TDP?
54Wvs65W - 1 newer version of PCI Express (PCIe)?
3vs2 - Has integrated graphics?
- 1. 83x higher PassMark result (single)?
2123vs1159
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
Intel Core i3-3220
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i7-7500U
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
AMD Phenom II X4 955
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 1200
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
AMD Phenom II X4 965
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i3-7100
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
AMD Sempron 2650
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Pentium Gold G6405
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
Intel Core i3-2105
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i5-3470
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
Intel Core i3-3110M
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i5-7400
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
AMD Athlon X4 970
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i3-6100
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
Intel Core i5-2450M
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Celeron N3350
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
AMD A6-5400K
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i5-3450
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
AMD Athlon Silver 3050U
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i9-7900X
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Athlon II X2 270
0 User reviews
AMD Athlon II X2 270
0. 0/10
0 User reviews
Intel Pentium G4560
3 User reviews
Intel Pentium G4560
8.3/10
3 User reviews
Features
Value for money
No reviews yet
7.7/10
3 votes
Gaming
No reviews yet
7.7/10
3 votes
Performance
No reviews yet
7.0/10
3 votes
Reliability
No reviews yet
9.0/10
3 votes
Energy efficiency
No reviews yet
10.0/10
3 votes
Performance
1.CPU speed
2 x 3.4GHz
2 x 3.5GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2. CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4560
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7.L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8.L2 core
1MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
1.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
1866MHz
2400MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
38.4GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.DDR memory version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.maximum memory amount
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4560
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3. Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender (bmw27) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.Blender (classroom) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9. performance per watt
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multithreading
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✔Intel Pentium G4560
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✔Intel Pentium G4560
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4560
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4560
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔AMD Athlon II X2 270
✔Intel Pentium G4560
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4560
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
AMD Athlon II X2 215 vs Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140
Comparative analysis of AMD Athlon II X2 215 and Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.
AMD Athlon II X2 215
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Athlon II X2 215
- CPU is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 69% higher clock speed: 2. 7 GHz vs 1.6 GHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 45 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 72% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 1039 vs 605
- Around 73% better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 952 vs 549
- Around 72% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 327 vs 190
- Around 86% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 597 vs 321
Launch date | October 2009 vs June 2007 |
Maximum frequency | 2.7 GHz vs 1.6 GHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm vs 65 nm |
PassMark — Single thread mark | 1039 vs 605 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 952 vs 549 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 327 vs 190 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 597 vs 321 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140
- 2x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
L2 cache | 1024 KB (shared) vs 512 KB |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: AMD Athlon II X2 215
CPU 2: Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140
PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|
||
PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|
||
Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|
||
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
|
Name | AMD Athlon II X2 215 | Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140 |
---|---|---|
PassMark — Single thread mark | 1039 | 605 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 952 | 549 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 327 | 190 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 597 | 321 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Athlon II X2 215 | Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140 | |
---|---|---|
Architecture codename | Regor | Conroe |
Launch date | October 2009 | June 2007 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $45 | |
Place in performance rating | 2108 | 2548 |
Price now | $11. 99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 38.69 | |
Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Processor Number | E2140 | |
Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor | |
Status | Discontinued | |
64 bit support | ||
Die size | 117 mm | 77 mm2 |
L1 cache | 128 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
L2 cache | 512 KB | 1024 KB (shared) |
Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 65 nm |
Maximum frequency | 2. 7 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
Number of cores | 2 | 2 |
Transistor count | 410 million | 105 million |
Base frequency | 1.60 GHz | |
Bus Speed | 800 MHz FSB | |
Maximum core temperature | L2=61.4°C; G0+M0=73.3°C | |
VID voltage range | 0.8500V-1.5V | |
Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
Sockets supported | AM3 | LGA775, PLGA775 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Low Halogen Options Available | ||
Package Size | 37. 5mm x 37.5mm | |
Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
FSB parity | ||
Idle States | ||
Intel 64 | ||
Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
Thermal Monitoring | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare AMD Athlon II X2 215 with others
AMD
Athlon II X2 215
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 3700+
AMD
Athlon II X2 215
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 4000+
AMD
Athlon II X2 215
vs
AMD
Sempron LE-1250
AMD
Athlon II X2 215
vs
Intel
Core i3-560
AMD
Athlon II X2 215
vs
Intel
Core i3-3220
AMD
Athlon II X2 215
vs
Intel
Core 2 Duo E6700
AMD Athlon vs Intel Pentium: Which Cheap Chips Are Best?
It’s an age-old processor battle: AMD Athlon vs Intel Pentium. Twenty years ago—in the early days of Tom’s Hardware—those processor brands represented high-performance parts. Today, the Pentium and Athlon names are relegated to both companies’ entry-level options, but the battle rages anew.
Modern Athlons and Pentiums are meant for lower-level computing tasks, such as light web browsing and word processing, not high-performance tasks like high-resolution gaming and video editing. If you’re mulling over a new budget build and not sure which to choose, we’ll break down the benefits and drawbacks of each below. Both Intel and AMD now deliver surprisingly capable budget chips. But in the end, a lot hinges on real-world pricing.
Features
At the high-end of the processor market, with its Ryzens and Threadrippers AMD counters Intel’s clock speed advantage by offering more cores per dollar than Intel. At the low-end, AMD’s big advantage is graphics processing.
Athlon 200GE | Athlon 220GE | Athlon 240GE | Pentium Gold G5600 | Pentium Gold G5400 | Ryzen 3 2200G | |
TDP | 35W | 35W | 35W | 54W | 54W | 65W |
Architecture | Zen | Zen | Zen | Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake | Zen |
Process | 14nm | 14nm | 14nm | 14nm++ | 14nm++ | 14nm |
Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 4 / 4 |
Frequency Base / Boost | 3. 2 / — | 3.4 / — | 3.5 / — | 3.9 / — | 3.7 / — | 3.5 / 3.7 |
Memory Speed | DDR4-2667 | DDR4-2667 | DDR4-2667 | DDR4-2400 | DDR4-2400 | DDR4-2933 |
Memory Controller | Dual-Channel | Dual-Channel | Dual-Channel | Dual-Channel | Dual-Channel | Dual-Channel |
Cache (L3) | 4MB | 4MB | 4MB | 4MB | 4MB | 4MB |
Integrated Graphics | Vega 3 (3 CU) | Vega 3 (3CU) | Vega 3 (3 CU) | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 610 | RX Vega 8 (8 CU) |
Unlocked Multiplier | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
MSRP | $55 | $65 | $75 | $86 | $64 | $99 |
Intel Pentium Gold and AMD Athlon processors all come in dual-core configurations. Pentium chips feature Intel’s Hyperthreading technology, and Athlon processors support Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT), giving both companies four logical threads to work with.
The 3.7 GHz Pentium G5400 and the 3.9 GHz Pentium G5600 have a distinct clock speed advantage over the 3.2 GHz, 3.4 GHz, and 3.5 GHz Athlon processors.
AMD’s chips make up for their clock speed deficit with other features, such as the Radeon Vega-based graphics engine that’s composed of three Compute Units (CUs), serving up a modest 192 Stream processors, 12 TMUs, and four ROPs.. The Pentium CPUs also have built-in graphics processors, but Intel’s UHD Graphics 630 (G5600) and UHD Graphics 610 (G5400) are limited to 24 and 12 execution units, respectively.
AMD’s Athlon processors also support faster memory than Intel’s latest Pentium chips (DDR4-2667 vs DDR4-2400). And they draw less power than Intel’s counterparts (35w vs 54w).
Winner: AMD. Clock speed isn’t everything. Especially when you’re on a budget, AMD’s Athlon processors support faster memory (a boon for integrated graphics), draw less power, and they include Vega GPU cores for moderate video tasks.
Overclocking
Typically, when you think about a budget processor and the features it would offer, overclocking doesn’t usually come to mind. Of course, there are some significant historical exceptions—Intel’s Celeron 300A brings back memories—but overclocking is typically a feature reserved for higher-priced components.
In recent years, overclocking has become much more mainstream. And as such, AMD has embraced the feature across almost its entire product stack. However, the Athlon series is the outlier. AMD does not officially support overclocking the new Athlon processors, but that didn’t stop motherboard manufacturers from supporting the feature anyway.
Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI all offer motherboards that enable you to adjust the clock speed of Zen-based Athlon processors. You can’t improve the clock speed of the built-in GPU, and memory is locked down to DDR4-2667, but with the right motherboard you can coax 3.9GHz out of an Athlon processor. In our experience, all three Athlon models top out at the same clock speed, so if you’re going to overclock, you might as well save some money and get the Athlon 200GE. You can also overclock with the stock cooler, which is a great value-add.
Intel’s Pentium processors do not support overclocking, and you won’t find a motherboard that overrides Intel’s specifications.
Winner: AMD. AMD is the clear winner for the overclocking category, because you can’t overclock a Pentium processor. AMD didn’t want to enable overclocking, but with the right motherboard, you can do it anyway. The moderate clock speed increase doesn’t improve performance dramatically, but if you overclock an Athlon 200GE, you can yield the same performance as an overclocked Athlon 240GE, which reinforces its substantial value.
Cooling Requirements
AMD’s Athlon 200GE, 220GE and 240GE dual-core processors feature an Low 35W TDP. In other words, they don’t require substantial cooling hardware. AMD equips the Athlon lineup with a heatsink and fan combo with ample capacity to dissipate the nominal heat output from these low-powered chips.
We even found that the stock cooler provided enough cooling capacity to keep our samples at safe temperatures even with the maximum overclock applied.
Intel’s Pentium Gold processors also come bundled with an Intel heatsink and fan assembly, and there’s really no reason to bother upgrading that cooler except aesthetics. Pentium chips have a higher TDP rating than AMD’s Athlon processors, but you can’t overclock them, so they’ll never exceed the factory specifications.
Winner: Tie. AMD and Intel both give you everything you need to keep their entry-level processors cool enough for safe operation.
Motherboard Options
Intel’s Pentium processors can’t be overclocked, but that doesn’t mean that they lack motherboard options. On the contrary, the lower down Intel’s lineup you go, the more motherboard options you get.
In some ways, it’s easier to shop for a motherboard for a high-end build because right off the top you’ll eliminate the low-end chipsets and focus on the feature-rich Z-series. And if you’re shopping for a moderate-budget gaming system, you may consider an h470.
When you’re building a system around a Pentium processor, Intel’s entry-level h410 will give you everything you need for a basic system. However, the 5000-Series Pentium G processors share the same socket as Intel’s current-generation Core processor. So, if you have any inclination to upgrade your CPU down the road, you can save yourself a few bucks later by picking a motherboard with a better chipset today.
Intel Chipsets
Intel | Chipset | Supported Processor PCI Express Port Configurations | USB Revision | Max Number of SATA 6. 0 Gb/s Ports | Intel Optane Memory Support | Supports Overclocking |
Enthusiast | Z390 | 1×16 or 2×8 or 1×8+2×4 | 3.1/2.0 | 6 | Yes | Yes |
Enthusiast | Z370 | 1×16 or 2×8 or 1×8+2×4 | 3.0/2.0 | 6 | Yes | Yes |
Mainstream | h470 | 1×16 | 3.1/2.0 | 6 | Yes | No |
Mainstream | Q370 | 1×16 or 2×8 or 1×8+2×4 | 3.1/2.0 | 6 | Yes | No |
Mainstream | B360 | 1×16 | 3.1/2.0 | 6 | Yes | No |
Mainstream | h410 | 1×16 | 3.1/2.0 | 4 | No | No |
AMD’s new Athlon processors are also compatible with the company’s full line of motherboards (save for HEDT/Threadripper), including boards with 300-series and 400-series chipsets. The A320 chipset is perfect for a low-budget build, but if you want to overclock your processor, you’ll need something a little bit more advanced.
AMD doesn’t officially support overclocking the Athlon series, but some motherboard manufacturers have released firmware that unlocks some parameters of the Athlon chips. If overclocking is on your radar, you’ll need to look at boards with the a chipset greater than A320.
AMD Chipsets
AMD | Chipset | PCI Express Graphics | USB 3.1 G2 + 3.1 G1 + 2.0 | SATA + NVME | SATA RAID | Supports Overclocking |
Enthusiast | X470 | 1×16/2×8 (AMD Ryzen processors) 1×8 (A-Series/AMD Athlon processors) | 2+10+6 | 6 + x2 NVMe (or 4 SATA plus 1 x4 NVMe on AMD Ryzen™ Processor) | 0,1,10 | Yes |
Enthusiast | X370 | 1×16/2×8 (AMD Ryzen) 1×8 (A-Series/AMD Athlon) | 2+10+6 | 6 + x2 NVMe (or 4 SATA plus 1 x4 NVMe on AMD Ryzen™ Processor) | 0,1,10 | Yes |
Performance | B350 | 1×16(AMD Ryzen)1×8 (A-Series/AMD Athlon) | 2+6+6 | 4 + x2 NVMe (or 2 SATA 1 x4 NVMe on AMD Ryzen™ Processor) | 0,1,10 | Yes |
Mainstream | A320 | 1×16 (AMD Ryzen) 1×8 (A-Series/AMD Athlon) | 1+6+6 | 4 + x2 NVMe (or 2 SATA 1 x4 NVMe on AMD Ryzen™ Processor) | 0,1,10 | No |
Winner: Tie. AMD and Intel both offer budget-friendly options that pair well with their low-end processors. And if you’re looking for fancy features, both processors are compatible higher-end options as well.
Gaming Performance
Image 1 of 11
When it comes to gaming performance on integrated graphics (above), the choice between AMD’s Athlon lineup and Intel’s Pentium lineup isn’t as clear as you might imagine. AMD’s Vega GPU cores give standalone Athlon processors a significant advantage over standalone Pentium processors.
The three Vega cores found in the Athlon chips can pump out reasonable frame rates in a handful of popular games—provided the resolution and detail settings are dialed back, whereas the UHD Graphics cores in the Pentium chips can barely handle Dota 2.
Image 1 of 11
That said, if you’re going to be pairing your system with a discrete graphics card, you should turn to Intel. In our experience, even an overclocked Athlon can’t deliver data to the GPU fast enough to keep up with the Pentium G5400.
Above, we’ve tested the chips paired with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 2080 at the 1920×1080 resolution to remove any GPU limitations. We tested with an Nvidia GeForce 1080 FE graphics card to remove graphics-imposed bottlenecks, but the difference between the processors will shrink with the cheaper graphics cards that are commonly found in budget builds.
Winner: Tie. AMD’s Athlon processors offer better out-of-the-box gaming performance than Intel’s Pentium lineup, unless you pair them with a discrete graphics card. Intel’s clock speed advantage and its superior number of instructions per clock (IPC) give the Pentium chips a leg up when paired with a dedicated graphics card.
Productivity Performance
Image 1 of 22
AMD gives Intel a run for its money in the gaming and features categories, but Intel is still the king of productivity on the low end.
Intel’s Pentium processors are surprisingly strong in Adobe Creative Cloud applications. In Illustrator, the Pentium G5400 and G5600 outperformed our Athlon 240GE, Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 3 1300X processors, while they were clocked at 3. 9 GHz.
The overclocked Athlon is faster than the Pentium G5400 in After Effects. But the Pentium came out on top in every other Adobe test.
Intel’s processors are also stronger than AMD’s in our web browser test suite, they perform better in spreadsheet work, and Pentium chips are quicker at starting applications than AMD chips.
However, the Athlon 220GE and Athlon 240GE outperformed the Pentium chips in our PCMark 10 photo editing test.
Winner: Intel. Intel’s Pentium processors are better than AMD’s Athlon processors in almost all the productivity tests we put them through. The performance difference between the two processor types isn’t dramatic, but Intel is superior for these tasks.
Rendering
Image 1 of 8
In Cinebench, PCMark 10, POV-RAY, and Corona 1.3, all three of AMD’s processors return the lowest scores in our test lineup. Overclocking our Athlon 240GE to 3.9 GHz improved the scores a little bit, but it only outperformed the two Pentium options in Cinebench multicore and POV-RAY multicore.
If you work with Blender, the Athlon’s fare better than the Pentium chips. But if we’re honest, if you’re looking for a computer to do video rendering with, we would highly recommend looking at stronger CPU options. Neither Intel’s Pentium nor AMD’s Athlon series are well suited for this type of workload.
Winner: Intel. Except for in Blender, Intel’s Pentium lineup is superior to the Athlon lineup at video rendering. That said, being better than the worst isn’t great. Don’t buy a Pentium processor for video rendering.
Encoding and Compression
Image 1 of 8
Like video rendering, budget processors aren’t well suited for encoding and compression work. However, in this case, AMD’s processors might be a better option than Intel’s.
AMD’s Athlon 200GE is the worst performer of the lot, across our entire suite of tests except for Y-Cruncher. However, our overclocked Athlon 240GE outpaced Intel’s Pentium processors in most of our tests.
The Pentium chips are stronger at 7-zip compression, but the overclocked Athlon is far better at 7-zip decompression than the Pentium options. The tuned Athlon also topped the Pentium chips in our LuxMark, LAME, and Handbrake tests.
Winner: AMD. The budget CPUs from Intel and AMD are not great choices if you do a lot of encoding or work with compressed files regularly. Intel’s options are better at the stock operating clock speeds. However, if you overclock an Athlon processor, you can squeeze out more performance than Intel’s offerings.
Value Proposition
Intel is really feeling the pressure from AMD these days. For years, AMD struggled to compete with Intel, but in the last two years the company has been turning up the heat. AMD’s Ryzen lineup took a substantial chunk of Intel’s market share, and the Athlon lineup is poised to help AMD continue that trend.
Intel is in a tight spot because it’s dealing with record demand coupled with production constraints that have wreaked havoc on the company’s ability to supply enough silicon to meet demand. As such, Intel’s processors have been creeping up in price.
What was once a $64 processor, the Pentium Gold G5400 now sells for around $100. And the Pentium Gold G5600, which launched at $86 MSRP now sells for over $140. And that’s if you can find them in stock.
AMD’s latest Athlon processor, meanwhile can currently be found for less than its $75 MSRP.
Winner: AMD. Intel’s processors would be much more competitive at their suggested retail prices. But with the current supply problems, Pentium processors are trading at more than 30 percent markup, which makes AMD’s Athlon series a much-better value.
AMD is really shaking up the CPU market from top to bottom, especially now that Intel is having trouble with its production volume. Where Intel’s processors are going up in price and getting harder to find, AMD’s competing chips are readily available and more affordable.
Honestly, we can’t think of many reasons to buy a Pentium Gold over a new Athlon unless you’re shopping for PCs for an office. Pentium processors are superior for basic productivity tasks, but not much else at this point except for rendering, which you really shouldn’t be doing on a dual-core budget processor anyway.
Combine that with the higher prices of Intel’s budget chips, which are at times more than double what AMD is charging for its recent Athlons, and there’s really not much of a contest here at the moment. Of course Intel knows this, which is likely why we’ve seen indications that new Pentiums are coming, including a possible model with an impressive 4GHz clock speed. The real question, if and when these chips arrive, will be pricing and whether Intel can keep them in stock.
Round | Intel | AMD |
Features | ✗ | |
Overclocking | ✗ | |
Cooling Requirements | ✗ | ✗ |
Motherboards | ✗ | ✗ |
Gaming Performance | ✗ | ✗ |
Productivity Performance | ✗ | |
Rendering | ✗ | |
Encoding & Encryption | ✗ | |
Value | X | |
Total | 5 | 7 |
Want to comment on this story? Let us know what you think in the Tom’s Hardware Forums.
MORE: Best Cheap CPUs
MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
AMD Athlon 200GE
$59.98
View at Newegg
View at Amazon
1 Amazon customer review
☆☆☆☆☆
AMD Athlon 220GE
$164.21
View at Amazon
119 Amazon customer reviews
☆☆☆☆☆
Intel Pentium Gold G5600
$90.99
View at Amazon
View at Newegg
View at Newegg
64 Amazon customer reviews
☆☆☆☆☆
Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.
Topics
Components
CPUs
AMD Athlon II X2 250 vs Intel Pentium G3220
|
|
|
AMD Athlon II X2 250 vs Intel Pentium G3220
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the AMD Athlon II X2 250 on one side and the Intel Pentium G3220 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, It has 2 cores, 2 threads, a maximum frequency of 3,0GHz. The second is used on the desktop segment, it has a total of 2 cores, 2 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 3,0 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specifications:
Processor | AMD Athlon II X2 250 | Intel Pentium G3220 | ||||||
Market (main) | Desktop | Desktop | ||||||
ISA | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) | ||||||
Microarchitecture | K10 | Haswell | ||||||
Core name | Regor | Haswell-DT | ||||||
Family | Athlon II X2 200 | Pentium 3000 | ||||||
Part number(s), S-Spec | ADX250OCGQBOX, ADX250OCK23GQ |
BX80646G3220, BXC80646G3220, CM8064601482519, CM8064601562017, QDN2, QF54, SR1CG, SR1RK |
||||||
Release date | Q2 2009 | Q3 2013 | ||||||
Lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm | ||||||
Transistors | 234. 000.000 | 1.400.000.000 | ||||||
Cores | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Threads | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Base frequency | 3,0 GHz | 3,0 GHz | ||||||
Turbo frequency | — | — | ||||||
Cache memory | 2 MB | 3 MB | ||||||
Max memory capacity | 4 GB | 32 GB | ||||||
Memory types | DDR2-1066, DDR3-1066 | DDR3-1333, DDR3L-1333 | ||||||
Max # of memory channels | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Max memory bandwidth | 17,1 GB/s | 21,3 GB/s | ||||||
Max PCIe lanes | 16 | 16 | ||||||
TDP | 65 W | 53 W | ||||||
Suggested PSU | 600W ATX Power Supply | 600W ATX Power Supply | ||||||
GPU integrated graphics | None | Intel HD Graphics (Haswell) | ||||||
GPU execution units | — | 10 | ||||||
GPU shading units | — | 80 | ||||||
GPU base clock | — | 350 MHz | ||||||
GPU boost clock | — | 1100 MHz | ||||||
GPU FP32 floating point | — | 160 GFLOPS | ||||||
Socket | AM3 | LGA1150 | ||||||
Compatible motherboard | Socket AM3 Motherboard | Socket LGA 1150 Motherboard | ||||||
Maximum temperature | 74°C | 72°C | ||||||
Security | Enhanced Virus Protection | — | ||||||
CPU-Z single thread | 128 | 315 | ||||||
CPU-Z multi thread | 137 | 631 | ||||||
Cinebench R15 single thread | 98 | 116 | ||||||
Cinebench R15 multi-thread | 165 | 221 | ||||||
Cinebench R20 single thread | 189 | 292 | ||||||
Cinebench R20 multi-thread | 318 | 533 | ||||||
PassMark single thread | 1. 132 | 1.695 | ||||||
PassMark CPU Mark | 1.048 | 1.852 | ||||||
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core |
1.805 | 2.987 | ||||||
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core |
3.067 | 4.957 | ||||||
(Windows) Geekbench 5 single core |
345 | 649 | ||||||
(Windows) Geekbench 5 multi-core |
657 | 1.208 | ||||||
(SGEMM) GFLOPS performance |
21,5 GFLOPS | 36,72 GFLOPS | ||||||
(Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio |
47 pts / W | 94 pts / W | ||||||
Amazon | ||||||||
eBay |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.
Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
We see that the two processors have an equivalent number of cores, they have a similar turbo frequency, that the thermal dissipation power of Intel Pentium G3220 is less. The Intel Pentium G3220 was started more recently.
Performances :
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.
CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
315 631 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
128 137 |
In single core, the difference is 146%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 361%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.
Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
116 221 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
98 165 |
In single core, the difference is 18%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 34%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
Cinebench R20 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
292 533 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
189 318 |
In single core, the difference is 54%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 68%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
1.695 1.852 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
1.132 1.048 |
In single core, the difference is 50%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 77%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
On Windows 64-bit:
Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
2.987 4.957 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
1.805 3.067 |
In single core, the difference is 65%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 62%.
On Linux 64-bit:
Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux 64-bit | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
3.246 5.060 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
1.986 3.190 |
In single core, the difference is 63%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 59%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
On Windows:
Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
649 1.208 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
345 657 |
In single core, the difference is 88%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 84%.
On Linux:
Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium G3220 |
682 1.232 |
AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
406 705 |
In single core, the difference is 68%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 75%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.
Equivalence:
AMD Athlon II X2 250 Intel equivalentIntel Pentium G3220 AMD equivalent
CPU-Z Benchmark for AMD Athlon II X2 270 (2T)
Best CPU performance — 64-bit — September 2022
AMD Athlon II X2 270 (2T)
Back to validation
Intel Celeron G5905
Intel Pentium G4400
Intel Pentium G3260
Intel Pentium G3258
Intel Pentium G3420
Intel Pentium G3250
AMD Athlon Silver 3050U
Intel Celeron G4900
Intel Pentium G3240
Intel Pentium G3220
Intel Pentium G2130
Intel Celeron G3930
Intel Celeron G3900
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750
Intel Celeron G1840
Intel Pentium G2030
Intel Pentium G860
Intel Pentium G2020
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600
Intel Celeron G1820
Intel Pentium G645
Intel Pentium G2010
Intel Pentium G850
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
Intel Celeron G1620
Intel Pentium G840
Intel Pentium G640
Pentium E5800
Intel Pentium G630
Pentium E6700
Intel Celeron G1610
Intel Core 2 Duo E7600
Pentium E6600
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850
Pentium E5700
Intel Pentium G620
Intel Celeron G550
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500
Pentium E6500
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
Intel Pentium 2020M
Intel Celeron G540
AMD 3020e
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400
Pentium E5500
Intel Celeron G530
Intel Core 2 Duo T9600
Intel Pentium B980
Pentium E5400
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E7300
Intel Core 2 Duo T9400
Intel Core 2 Duo T9300
Pentium E5300
Intel Celeron E3400
Intel Celeron N4020
Intel Core 2 Duo P8700
Intel Celeron J4005
Intel Celeron E3300
Pentium E5200
Intel Core 2 6600
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600
Intel Celeron 4205U
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600
Intel Celeron 3865U
AMD A6-9500 RADEON R5; 8 COMPUTE CORES 2C+6G
Intel Celeron N4000
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
AMD A6-7480
Pentium E6300
Intel Pentium Dual E2220
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200
AMD A4-7300
AMD A6-6400K
Intel Core 2 Duo P8400
Intel Pentium B940
Intel Celeron 1005M
Pentium T4500
Intel Pentium P6200
AMD A6-7400K
AMD A4-6300
(YOU) AMD Athlon II X2 270
Intel Core 2 Duo T6670
Intel Core 2 Duo T7500
Intel Core 2 Duo T6600
Intel Celeron 3205U
Intel Pentium 2117U
Intel Pentium 3558U
Intel Celeron 1000M
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500
Pentium T4400
Intel Pentium Dual E2200
Intel Core 2 Duo T6570
AMD A6-5400K
Intel Pentium B960
Intel Celeron 1037U
Intel Core 2 Duo T8100
Intel Core 2 6400
Intel Celeron B830
Celeron T3500
Intel Pentium P6100
Pentium T4300
AMD A9-9420 RADEON R5; 5 COMPUTE CORES 2C+3G
Intel Pentium Dual T3400
AMD A4-5300B
AMD A4-5300
Intel Pentium B950
Intel Core 2 Duo P7350
Intel Core 2 Duo T6500
Intel Celeron N3350
Intel Core 2 Duo T6400
Intel Core 2 Duo T7250
Pentium T4200
Intel Core 2 T7200
Intel Core 2 Duo T5870
Intel Core 2 4400
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400
AMD Athlon II X2 270
Intel Celeron B820
Intel Pentium Dual E2180
Intel Pentium Dual T3200
Intel Core 2 Duo T5750
AMD A9-9425 RADEON R5; 5 COMPUTE CORES 2C+3G
Intel Celeron B815
Intel Core 2 6300
AMD A4-4000
Intel Pentium Dual T2390
AMD Phenom II X2 555
AMD Athlon II X2 260
Intel Celeron 2957U
Intel Celeron 1007U
AMD Phenom II X2 550
Intel Core 2 Duo T5800
AMD Athlon II X2 255
Intel Core 2 4300
Intel Celeron B800
AMD Athlon II X2 250
AMD Athlon II X2 B24
AMD A6-9225 RADEON R4; 5 COMPUTE CORES 2C+3G
AMD Athlon II X2 245
AMD A6-4400M
AMD Athlon II X2 240
AMD Athlon II X2 220
AMD A6-9220 RADEON R4; 5 COMPUTE CORES 2C+3G
AMD A4-3400
AMD Athlon II X2 215
AMD A4-4300M
AMD A4-9125 RADEON R3; 4 COMPUTE CORES 2C+2G
AMD Athlon 7750
AMD A4-9120 RADEON R3; 4 COMPUTE CORES 2C+2G
AMD A4-3300
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Intel Pentium D 3. 40GHz
AMD A4-3330MX
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+
AMD E2-9000 RADEON R2; 4 COMPUTE CORES 2C+2G
Intel Celeron 847
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+
AMD A4-3305M
Intel Celeron N2840
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Intel Celeron J1800
Intel Pentium D 3.00GHz
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
AMD Athlon II P320
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Intel Celeron N3060
Intel Celeron J3060
Intel Celeron N2830
Intel Pentium D 2.80GHz
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
AMD E2-9000e RADEON R2; 4 COMPUTE CORES 2C+2G
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
AMD E1-2500
Intel Celeron N3050
AMD E1-6010
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
AMD E2-1800
Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz
Intel Pentium 4 3.00GHz
AMD E-450
AMD E-350
AMD E1-2100
AMD E1-1500
Intel Pentium 4 2.80GHz
AMD E1-1200
AMD C-60
AMD E-300
AMD C-70
AMD C-50
Intel Atom N450
Intel Atom N455
AMD Athlon II X2 340 vs.
Intel Pentium G2020
AMD Athlon II X2 340
The AMD Athlon II X2 340 operates with 2 cores and 2 CPU threads. It run at 3.60 GHz base 3.60 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 65 W.The processor is attached to the FM2 CPU socket. This version includes 1.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 1 memory channels to support DDR3-1600 RAM and features PCIe Gen lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Trinity Architecture is enhanced with 32 nm technology and supports None. The product was launched on Q4/2012
Intel Pentium G2020
The Intel Pentium G2020 operates with 2 cores and 2 CPU threads. It run at No turbo base No turbo all cores while the TDP is set at 55 W.The processor is attached to the LGA 1155 CPU socket. This version includes 3.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR3-1333 RAM and features 2.0 PCIe Gen 16 lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Ivy Bridge S Architecture is enhanced with 22 nm technology and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d. The product was launched on Q2/2013
AMD Athlon II X2 340
Intel Pentium G2020
Compare Detail
3.20 GHz | Frequency | 2.90 GHz |
2 | Cores | 2 |
3.60 GHz | Turbo (1 Core) | No turbo |
3.60 GHz | Turbo (All Cores) | No turbo |
No | Hyperthreading | No |
Yes | Overclocking | No |
normal | Core Architecture | normal |
no iGPU | GPU |
Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1) |
No turbo | GPU (Turbo) | 1.05 GHz |
32 nm | Technology | 22 nm |
No turbo | GPU (Turbo) | 1.05 GHz |
DirectX Version | 11.0 | |
Max. displays | 3 | |
DDR3-1600 | Memory | DDR3-1333 |
1 | Memory channels | 2 |
Max memory | ||
No | ECC | Yes |
— | L2 Cache | — |
1. 00 MB | L3 Cache | 3.00 MB |
PCIe version | 2.0 | |
PCIe lanes | 16 | |
32 nm | Technology | 22 nm |
FM2 | Socket | LGA 1155 |
65 W | TDP | 55 W |
None | Virtualization | VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d |
Q4/2012 | Release date | Q2/2013 |
Show more data |
Show more data |
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
AMD Athlon II X2 340 | Intel Pentium G2020 | |
65 W | Max TDP | 55 W |
NA | Power consumption per day (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per day | NA |
NA | Power consumption per year (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per year | NA |
Popular Comparision
Comments
0026
256KB vs 128KB
1MB/core vs 0.25MB/core
Why is Intel Pentium G4600 better than AMD Athlon II X2 270?
- 5.88% higher CPU speed?
2 x 3.6GHz vs 2 x 3.4GHz - 534MHz higher RAM speed?
2400MHz vs 1866MHz - 2 more CPU threads?
4 vs 2 - Are 18nm semiconductors smaller?
14nm vs 32nm - 2.72x higher PassMark score?
5339 vs 1966 - 14W below TDP?
51W vs 65W - 1 newer PCI Express (PCIe) version?
3 vs 2 - Has integrated graphics?
What are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Athlon II X2 270
VS
Intel Core i3-3220
Intel Pentium G4600
VS
Intel Core I3-6100
AMD ATHOLON II X2 270
VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 AM
Intel Pentium G4600
VS
Intel Core i3-7100
AMD Athlon II X2 270
VS
AMD Phenom II X4
20
0
VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000)0002 AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
AMD Sempron 2650
Intel Pentium G4600
vs
AMD FX-4300
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
Intel Core i3-2105
Intel Pentium G4600
VS
Intel Core i5-7400
AMD ATHLON II X2 270
VS
Intel Core i3-31103
Intel Pentium G4600 9000 VS
9000 9000 AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD ATH0003
vs
AMD Athlon X4 970
Intel Pentium G4600
vs
Intel Pentium Gold G5400
AMD Athlon II X2 270
vs
Intel Core i5-2450M
Intel Pentium G4600
vs
Intel Core i5-3470
AMD Athlon II X2 270
VS
AMD A6-5400K
Intel Pentium G4600
VS
Intel Celeron G4950
AMD ATHLON II X2 VS0003
AMD Athlon Silver 3050u
Intel Pentium G4600
VS
Intel Pentium G4560
Classes
Users
2
CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second the processor can perform, considering all its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.
2nd processor thread
More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.
3. turbo clock speed
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
4. Unlocked
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4600
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and can be easily overclocked for better performance in games and other applications.
5.L2 Cache
More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
6. L3 cache
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
7.L1 cache
More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
8.core L2
1MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
9.core L3
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
1.5MB/core
More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
Memory
1.RAM speed
1866MHz
2400MHz
Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.
2.max memory bandwidth
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
38. 4GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3.DDR version
DDR (Double Data Rate Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory) is the most common type of RAM. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.
4.Memory channels
More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.
5.max memory
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Maximum amount of memory (RAM).
6.bus baud rate
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device.
7. Supports memory debug code
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4600
Memory debug code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
A newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.
9.bus frequency
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device
Geotagging
1. PassMark result
This test measures CPU performance using multithreading.
2. PassMark result (single)
This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4. Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.
6. Geekbench 5 result (single core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the single-core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7. Blender test result (bmw27)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
The Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
8.Blender result (classroom)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
9. power per watt
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
This means that the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.
Functions
1.uses multithreading
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✔Intel Pentium G4600
processor into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.
2. Has AES
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✔Intel Pentium G4600
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3. Has AVX
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4600
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.
4.Version SSE
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5. Has F16C
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4600
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.
6.bits transmitted at the same time
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.
7. Has MMX
✔AMD Athlon II X2 270
✔Intel Pentium G4600
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.
8. TrustZone enabled
✖AMD Athlon II X2 270
✖Intel Pentium G4600
Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and video streaming through digital rights management (DRM) technology .
9.interface width
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Athlon II X2 270)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Pentium G4600)
The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means that the processor performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which CPUs are better?
This page is currently only available in English.
Comparison of Intel Pentium G4560 and AMD Athlon II X2 250e
Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium G4560 and AMD Athlon II X2 250e processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphical interfaces, Picture quality in graphics, Graphics API support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security and reliability, Technologies , Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T- Rex (Fps).
Intel Pentium G4560
versus
AMD Athlon II X2 250e
Benefits
Reasons to choose Intel Pentium G4560
- Newer processor, 6 year(s) 4 month(s) approx. 3.5 GHz vs 3 GHz
- Newer manufacturing process of the processor allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 14 nm vs 45 nm
- PassMark — Single thread mark about 75% better performance: 2101 vs 1201
- PassMark — CPU mark 3 times better performance: 3515 vs 1155
January 2017 vs September 2010 | |
Maximum frequency | 3. 5 GHz vs 3 GHz |
Process | 14 nm vs 45 nm |
PassMark — Single thread mark | 2101 vs 1201 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 3515 vs 1155 |
Reasons to choose AMD Athlon II X2 250e
- L2 cache is 2x larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- About 20% less power consumption: 45 Watt vs 54 Watt
Level 2 cache | 1024 KB vs 256 KB (per core) |
Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 54 Watt |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: Intel Pentium G4560
CPU 2: AMD Athlon II X2 250e
PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|||
PassMark — CPU mark |
|
Name | Intel Pentium G4560 | AMD Athlon II X2 250e |
---|---|---|
PassMark — Single thread mark | 2101 | 1201 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 3515 | 1155 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 841 | |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 1863 | |
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 2149 | |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.198 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 22.395 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.312 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.204 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2.986 | |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1003 | |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 2030 | |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3809 | |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1003 | |
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 2030 | |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3809 |
Feature comparison
Intel Pentium G4560 | AMD Athlon II X2 250e | |
---|---|---|
Architecture name | Kaby Lake | Regor |
Issue date | January 2017 | September 2010 |
Price at first issue date | $108 | $77 |
Place in the ranking | 1390 | 1457 |
Price now | $99. 99 | $76.73 |
Processor Number | G4560 | |
Series | Intel® Pentium® Processor G Series | |
Status | Launched | |
Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 14.35 | 7.49 |
Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
Support 64 bit | ||
Base frequency | 3. 50 GHz | |
Bus Speed | 8 GT/s DMI3 | |
Level 1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128KB |
Level 2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1024KB |
Level 3 cache | 3072 KB (shared) | |
Process | 14nm | 45nm |
Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | |
Maximum core temperature | 100°C | |
Maximum frequency | 3. 5 GHz | 3 GHz |
Number of cores | 2 | 2 |
Number of QPI Links | 0 | |
Number of threads | 4 | |
Crystal area | 117 mm | |
Number of transistors | 410 million | |
Maximum number of memory channels | 2 | |
Maximum memory size | 64GB | |
Supported memory types | DDR4-2133/2400, DDR3L-1333/1600 @ 1. 35V | DDR3 |
Device ID | 0x5902 | |
Graphics base frequency | 350MHz | |
Graphics max dynamic frequency | 1.05 GHz | |
Maximum GPU clock | 1.05 GHz | |
Intel® Clear Video Technology HD | ||
Intel® Clear Video Technology | ||
Intel® InTru™ 3D Technology | ||
Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||
Video memory size | 64GB | |
Integrated graphics | Intel® HD Graphics 610 | |
Maximum number of monitors supported | 3 | |
4K support | ||
Maximum resolution via DisplayPort | [email protected] | |
Maximum resolution via eDP | [email protected] | |
Maximum resolution via HDMI 1. 4 | [email protected] | |
DirectX | 12 | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | |
Low Halogen Options Available | ||
Maximum number of processors in | 1 | 1 |
Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | |
Supported sockets | FCLGA1151 | AM3 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 54 Watt | 45 Watt |
Thermal Solution | PCG 2015C (65W) | |
Number of PCI Express lanes | 16 | |
Revision PCI Express | 3. 0 | |
PCIe configurations | Up to 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4 | |
Scalability | 1S Only | |
Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
Intel® Identity Protection Technology | ||
Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX) | ||
Intel® OS Guard | ||
Intel® Secure Key Technology | ||
Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX) | ||
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | ||
Secure Boot | ||
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||
Idle States | ||
Extended instructions | Intel® SSE4. 1, Intel® SSE4.2 | |
Intel 64 | ||
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||
Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||
Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP) | ||
Intel® TSX-NI | ||
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||
Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
Thermal Monitoring | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) |
Comparison of Intel Pentium G840 and AMD Athlon II X2 250
Comparative analysis of Intel Pentium G840 and AMD Athlon II X2 250 processors according to all known characteristics in the categories: General Information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphical Interfaces, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security and Reliability, Technologies, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Intel Pentium G840
versus
AMD Athlon II X2 250
Benefits
Reasons to choose Intel Pentium G840
- Newer processor, release date difference 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
- 9 Newer manufacturing process allows its processor make it more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 32 nm vs 45 nm
- Performance in the PassMark — Single thread mark benchmark is about 8% higher: 1251 vs 1156
- Approximately 8% increase in PassMark — CPU mark performance: 1179 vs 1095
- Approximately 44% increase in Geekbench 4 — Single Core performance: 514 vs 357
- 46% more: 935 vs 642
Release date | May 2011 vs June 2009 |
Process | 32 nm vs 45 nm |
PassMark — Single thread mark | 1251 vs 1156 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 1179 vs 1095 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 514 vs 357 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 935 vs 642 |
Reasons to choose AMD Athlon II X2 250
- Approximately 7% more clock speed: 3 GHz vs 2. 8 GHz
- 2x larger L1 cache means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- L2 cache is 4 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
Maximum frequency | 3 GHz vs 2.8 GHz |
Level 1 cache | 256 KB vs 64 KB (per core) |
Level 2 cache | 2048 KB vs 256 KB (per core) |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: Intel Pentium G840
CPU 2: AMD Athlon II X2 250
PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|||
PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|||
Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|||
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
Name | Intel Pentium G840 | AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
---|---|---|
PassMark — Single thread mark | 1251 | 1156 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 1179 | 1095 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 514 | 357 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 935 | 642 |
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 0 | |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.343 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 5.142 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.089 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 0.184 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1.714 |
Feature comparison
Intel Pentium G840 | AMD Athlon II X2 250 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Architecture name | Sandy Bridge | Regor | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue date | May 2011 | June 2009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Price at first issue date | $60 | $39 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Place in the ranking | 1832 | 2603 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Price now | $34. 99 | $189.95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Processor Number | G840 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Status | Discontinued | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 21.58 | 2.70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Applicability | Desktop | Desktop | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Support 64 bit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Base frequency | 2. 80 GHz | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bus Speed | 5 GT/s DMI | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crystal area | 131 mm | 117mm | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Level 1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256KB | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Level 2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2048KB | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Level 3 cache | 3072 KB (shared) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Process | 32 nm | 45nm | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum core temperature | 69. 1°C | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum frequency | 2.8 GHz | 3 GHz | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of cores | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of threads | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of transistors | 504 million | 410 million | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum number of memory channels | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum memory size | 32GB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supported memory types | DDR3 1066/1333 | DDR3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Graphics base frequency | 850MHz | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Graphics max dynamic frequency | 1. 10 GHz | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum GPU clock | 1.1 GHz | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Clear Video Technology HD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Flexible Display Interface (Intel® FDI) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® InTru™ 3D Technology | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integrated graphics | Intel HD Graphics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum number of monitors supported | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WiDi support | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Low Halogen Options Available | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum number of processors in | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Package Size | 37. 5mm x 37.5mm | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supported sockets | FCLGA1155 | AM3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revision PCI Express | 2.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flexible Display interface (FDI) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Idle States | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Extended instructions | Intel® SSE4. 1, Intel® SSE4.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel 64 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® AES New Instructions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Fast Memory Access | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Flex Memory Access | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thermal Monitoring | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) |
Simple household tasks |
Athlon II X2 255 39.8 (+35.4%) Pentium 4 3.80GHz 25.7 |
Demanding games and tasks |
Athlon II X2 255 9.7 (+56.7%) Pentium 4 3.80GHz 4.2 |
Extreme |
Athlon II X2 255 1.9 (+57.9%) Pentium 4 3.80GHz 0.8 |
Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.
We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.
Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.
When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.
Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.
Benchmarks
Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.
Passmark
AMD Athlon II X2 255
1137 (+72.5%)
Intel Pentium 4 3.80GHz
313
Features .
Basic
Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |
DescriptionInformation about the processor, taken from the official website of the manufacturer. | ||
ArchitectureCode name for the microarchitecture generation. | ||
Process The manufacturing process, measured in nanometers. The smaller the technical process, the more perfect the technology, the lower the heat dissipation and power consumption. | No data | No data |
Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability. | 09-2016 | 09-2016 |
Model Official name. | ||
Cores The number of physical cores. | 2 | No data |
ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. | 2 | 2 |
Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores by the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. | Missing | Hyper-threading (note that some games may not work well with Hyper-threading, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard for maximum FPS). |
Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. | 3.1 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
Turbo Frequency The maximum frequency of a single processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. | 3.1 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
L3 cache size The third level cache acts as a buffer between the computer’s RAM and the processor’s level 2 cache. Used by all cores, the speed of information processing depends on the volume. | No data | No data |
Instructions | ||
Extended instruction set Allows you to speed up calculations, processing and execution of certain operations. Also, some games require instruction support. | ||
Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. | No | No |
Bus frequency The speed of communication with the system. | ||
Number of QPI links | ||
TDPThermal Design Power is an indicator that determines heat dissipation in standard operation. The cooler or water cooling system must be rated for a larger value. Remember that with a factory bus or manual overclocking, TDP increases significantly. | No data | No data |
Cooling system specifications |
Video core
Integrated graphics core Allows you to use your computer without a discrete graphics card. The monitor is connected to the video output on the motherboard. If earlier integrated graphics made it possible to simply work at a computer, today it can replace budget video accelerators and makes it possible to play most games at low settings. | ||
GPU base clockFrequency in 2D and idle. | No data | No data |
Maximum GPU frequencyMaximum 3D frequency. | No data | No data |
Intel® Wireless Display (Intel® WiDi) Supports Wireless Display technology using the Wi-Fi 802.11n standard. Thanks to it, a monitor or TV equipped with the same technology does not require a cable to connect. | ||
Supported monitorsThe maximum number of monitors that can be connected to the integrated video core at the same time. |
RAM
Maximum amount of RAMThe amount of RAM that can be installed on the motherboard with this processor. | No data | No data |
Supported type of RAM The type of RAM depends on its frequency and timings (speed), availability, price. | ||
RAM Channels The multi-channel memory architecture increases data transfer speed. On desktop platforms, two-channel, three-channel and four-channel modes are available. | ||
RAM bandwidth | ||
ECC memory Support for error-correcting memory that is used in servers. Usually more expensive than usual and requires more expensive server components. However, second-hand server processors, Chinese motherboards and ECC memory sticks, which are sold relatively cheaply in China, have become widespread. | No data | No data |
PCI
PCI-E Computer bus version of PCI Express. The bandwidth and power limit depend on the version. There is backward compatibility. | No data | No data |
PCI | ||
Number of PCI lanes | No data |
Data Security
AES-NI The AES command set extension speeds up applications that use appropriate encryption. | No data | No data |
Intel® Secure Key An RDRAND instruction that allows you to create a high performance random number generator. | No data | No data |
Decoration
Dimensions | No data | No data |
Supported sockets | No data | No data |
Maximum processors per motherboard | No data | No data |
Which is better
AMD Athlon II X2 255
- On average, gaming performance is 12% better.
- The speed of work in office applications and browsers is increased by 15%.
- In complex multi-threaded applications, faster and outperforms by 1%.
- The number of physical cores is 1 more.
Intel Pentium 4 3.80GHz
- The base frequency is 0.8 GHz higher.
How similar they are
- Prices for new processors are approximately equal.
- The number of threads is equal.
Test AMD Athlon for AM4 and Intel Celeron and Pentium for LGA115x
Testing Intel Core i7 Processors from 2700K to 10700K: Closing the LGA115x
Page We recently took a tour of the «tops» of mainstream Intel desktop platforms of the last decade. Precisely mass desktops — in the world of HEDT, many processes went their separate ways: in particular, there were practically no of the period of stagnation in terms of the number of cores — by the middle of the decade they had reached ten, and then abruptly «jumped» to 18. It is clear that it was also not without the help of AMD — it generally began its return to the high-performance segment just from the 16-core processors, offering eight as a typical desktop solution.
But HEDT is a separate conversation. It’s just that this segment itself is a branch of the server market, «modified» for personal needs. And the “classic desktop” is the brother of the laptop one. In the nineties of the last century — the older ones, in the noughties these processors sometimes developed independently, but now the desktop segment is often a reflection of the laptop one, and not vice versa. Hence the significant difference in approaches, and slightly different rates and even directions of evolution.
Concluding the topic of mass platforms, it is worth evaluating them from on the other side of : that is, not top models, but just the cheapest ones. Moreover, the former usually have a solid performance margin at the time of release — which often allows them to be used for several years, regardless of the rate of progress in the entire market. Budget processors are most often chosen on the basis of “just enough”, however, they are sometimes “enough” for several years, so the reason for replacing a computer is its physical failure or a change in user preferences (in this case, however, most often the old the desktop changes not to a new desktop, but to a new laptop). Is it worth it to climb into this idyll with «heavy» applications, with which our test methodology is crammed? After all, it is initially clear that a person who needs or just wants to process video is unlikely to buy a budget computer for this — otherwise he will “get bored” very quickly. However, we are now not too interested in the practical side of the matter. The point is just to compare the performance of models of different times, and, in general, they don’t care what to load. Well, the reason to remember history, of course, should not be ignored either.
Let’s start with it.
Athlon, Celeron and Pentium in primitive times
As we noted last time, for a long time the Core i7 trademark told the buyer that he was looking at a computer with a top-end processor. It was exactly the same with the Pentium 30 years ago: it was a real Intel Inside, and the latest generation.
At first, microprocessors lived in a separate pen and were not considered serious devices. As a result, most manufacturers for their naming were limited to digital indices: and so it will do, because the user of the finished device does not really care too much what is inside. However, by the middle of 90’s phenomenon of PC-compatible computers affected processors. Intel’s share in this market (not in the processor market as a whole — he still didn’t understand how it would all end) was larger than it is now. But there were more alternative manufacturers. And the methods of promoting products … let’s just say: they were different. As it turned out, it was impossible to even patent digital designations, so everyone understood what the “386th” or “486th” processor was to the extent that it was beneficial to them. The height of cynicism was, perhaps, Cyrix 486SLC — hardware compatible with 386SX, including 16-bit memory and data buses. Yes, and architecturally there was much more in common with the «three» than with the «four» — but the markings looked similar to the latter, and such models were cheap. Here at Intel, they decided to cover everything that is possible with patents. And what is impossible — to transform it into such a form that it is also possible.
The
Pentium is one of the first examples of its kind. Immediately «fifth» — since the «numbered» families of processors ended in the fourth. It was necessary to show its differences from the previous ones. Where did the mass of image advertising come from, which made this brand quite expensive. As a result, it had to be preserved for subsequent families of processors. So, for example, the next generation, designed primarily for servers, was the Pentium Pro. Its desktop adaptation with the addition of vector MMX instructions is the Pentium II. The Pentium Pro server changer in an updated form is the Pentium II Xeon. Then came the Pentium III and Pentium III Xeon. Then the Pentium 4 and Xeon were released — at this point, the Pentium and Xeon families became formally separate, although in fact they continued to use the same crystals at times. This reduced the confusion a little and tidied up the desktop and server models, but in general, it was not easy to figure out who is who without more information.
With Celeron, everything was simpler: the company needed a processor to “take out” both its previous developments and the “Pentium platform” from the market, where competitors were left to graze. He did not need to miss the stars from the sky — it had to be an inexpensive processor. The first models generally turned out to be simple: they took a Pentium II and “thrown out” the second-level cache, since the cost of SRAM chips at that time was quite high. Performance, of course, fell, but it was still possible to overtake the predecessors due to the fast bus and higher clock speed. And then it also turned out that these processors overclock perfectly: the crystals were taken the same as those of the Pentium II for the FSB100, and the standard bus remained from the old models — 66 MHz. And the cache did not interfere with overclocking due to the absence. In general, we got a two hundred dollar processor (very cheap at that time), which could provide a good level of performance.
And the updated Celeron models that appeared soon were even more fortunate — they were the first to «acquire» an integrated L2. Smaller than in «adult» processors, but running at full core frequency, which provided good overall performance. And such a cache, again, did not interfere with overclocking. At one time, these processors were popular even among enthusiasts: they were both overclocked and redesigned for dual-processor systems. But later the «reserve» of Celeron’s advantages disappeared, so these processors began to be simplified Pentium variants (first III, then 4) — with a lower core and bus frequency and a smaller cache memory capacity. In general, they are consistently slower, but also cheaper. So they found their buyer, but they became boring — like all budget solutions.
The appearance of Athlon refers to the same years. At first, both AMD and other «surviving» clone makers tried to continue working with digital codes — having independently put on a variety of «586s» and «686s» processors. However, the Pentium platform remained the last license-free niche for manufacturers of compatible processors and chipsets — Intel no longer allowed anyone to access the infrastructure of the P6 family (Pentium Pro/II/III). So I had to do something different — or die out. I did not want to die out — although not everyone succeeded. AMD managed (not without a lot of problems) to launch its competitive platform on the market. And since it also needed to be promoted as an alternative solution that is better than competitors, it also could not do without a sonorous name for processors. So it was chosen so ambitious — according to legend, athlons in ancient Greek are called the winners of the competition. And the processor really turned out to be very successful — in comparison with the then Pentium III. So successful that Intel decided to move quickly to the release of the Pentium 4 — not yet fully ready, which only added AMD points. They coped with the problems, began to systematically put pressure on all fronts — but then AMD pulled out the Athlon 64 from the wide legs, equipped with an integrated memory controller (at that time — a breakthrough) and support for 64-bit code. On the mass market, 64-bit computing became relevant by the time when all the first Athlon 64 processors had long since been thrown out, but it was easy to advertise such a solution. Moreover, Intel had nothing of the kind at that time. And later the struggle went on with varying success, but the appearance of Athlon 64 X2 in Intel could not stand it. No, of course, the company answered with its dual-core gluing under the name Pentium D — but not too convincingly.
The end of the story, however, turned out to be quite abrupt and sudden. It’s not for nothing that Intel spends more on R&D than any other company — in the end, it turns out more development than it goes to market. So there is always a way to turn sharply. In this case, there were also blanks: since the Pentium 4 was not very well suited (as it turned out) for laptops, which had already become the main type of computer equipment, Pentium M appeared in the Intel assortment, architecturally more reminiscent of the old P6. By the middle of the decade, very successful dual-core Core Duo had already been developed on its basis, and it was to them that 64-bit was finally “fastened” (before that, they were in no hurry, because in the mobile segment it was not needed even more than in the desktop) and others developments born during the development of the NetBurst architecture. This is how the Core 2 Duo appeared — already for both desktop and mobile computers. And a little later — their quad-core gluing in the form of Core 2 Quad. And a little later — server six-core Xeons, not to mention dual and quad-core ones.
AMD did not have the opportunity to make such a right away . Therefore, the company first tried to unleash a price war — for which Intel was much better prepared. Accordingly, the only result was a sharp decline in prices for processors, and for everything. In general, since then they have become inexpensive devices — and remained so for a long time, since there was no serious competition on the market (only recently, thanks to the return of competition, prices began to slowly rise). In general, it turned out that the release of Core 2 Duo completely buried both Pentium and Athlon — both of them have ceased to be associated with something high-performance. Therefore, it became necessary to name fast processors differently — in order to avoid unnecessary associations.
Current state
As a result, the «old» trademarks finally «gone» to the budget segment. First, in a natural way: the new items debuted at the average level and above, and the remains of the old ones were sold cheaply. Then the assortment began to be updated. Intel retained both Celeron and Pentium — fortunately enough funds were invested in both brands. The company tried to leave Celeron as a single-core processor, but it quickly became clear that this was not an option — programmers reacted too actively to the promotion of dual-core processors. So soon both Pentium and Celeron became dual-core cuts, first Core 2, and then Core of the next generations. The method of obtaining was the same and tested on the first Celerons: we cut the cache and buses. After switching to Core, GPUs and even instruction sets were added to the list for cutting: neither AVX nor AVX2 appeared in budget families. In general, from a software point of view, Celeron and Pentium, in fact, remained analogues of LGA775 processors for a long time. They, of course, received architectural improvements of new lines, such as integrated memory controllers and PCIe, but with reduced quantitative characteristics. Moreover, reduced even in the case of the Pentium — and Celeron still remained a «cut» Pentium.
In any case, this is true if we talk about the main desktop and mobile processor lines. In addition, server Pentiums appeared at one time — in the Xeon D family. And in the Pentium D1519, for example, four cores with Hyper-Threading support, 32 PCIe lanes, etc. And it supports AVX2. But by the standards of the line — also a simplified model. But there are no server Celerons, fortunately. Unfortunately, there are both Celeron and Pentium not based on Core — but on the «atomic» architecture. They appeared because by the middle of the last decade, the Atom brand had greatly discredited itself, and Intel did not come up with anything better than adding models with such an architecture to the families, albeit mutilated , but full-fledged processors. Then the mess was slightly reduced: Pentiums were divided into Silver and Gold. But Celeron, when choosing, has to be sorted by the full index. However, you don’t have to sort it: it’s clear that a processor with this name will always be trim trim , so if you have at least some serious requirements for the capabilities of the processor, then it’s better to avoid the Celeron family in principle, and if such requirements no — then anyone will suffice, without understanding the architecture.
AMD Athlon and Sempron processors for Socket AM1
As for Athlon, the main principle is the same: simplifying the main line. True, the approach to it is not always clear. For example, at one time there were Phenom II X2, X3 and X4 — and Athlon II X2, X3 and X4. And try to match Phenom II X2 with Athlon II X4. The first one, like , is cooler than and more expensive, but the second one is faster in multi-threaded code. Then APUs for various FM1/FM2/FM2+ began to turn into Athlon — by «liquidating» the GPU in older quad-core modifications. That is, again, the ambiguity: they could not do without a discrete video card, but with it the performance turned out to be better than any A4 / A6. And there was also such a strange miscarriage in AMD’s assortment as Socket AM1, for which only Athlon and Sempron were produced (at one time the Sempron brand was an analogue of Celeron, replacing Duron in this post; globally, both initially budget labels of the company can be considered dead), yes also in the likeness of the «atomic» architecture performed by AMD. In general, try to understand.
Fortunately, for the last couple of years you don’t even have to figure it out, because everything has become simple and logical: Athlon is a simplified relative of the Ryzen 3 APU, which has slightly fewer processor and graphics cores. And sometimes even no less: for example, laptop Athlon and Ryzen 3 were the same processor up to frequency. Now a similar intersection has appeared in desktop models, but from different years of development. The only thing that greatly spoils this family is that AMD’s new generations of microarchitecture come to the APU line with some delay relative to «pure» processors, while Athlon … hasn’t received a single one yet. It is still the same original Zen microarchitecture and process technology as in 2017. In 2018 (when the new Athlons appeared), this was normal, now it’s not so good. But as budget solutions, these processors still look good. Better than the Celeron, anyway, even if you just look at the specs. And how it is in practice — now we will measure it.
Test participants
Intel Celeron G1630 | Intel Celeron G1840 | Intel Celeron G3900 | Intel Celeron G4900 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kernel name | Ivy Bridge | Haswell | Skylake | Coffee Lake |
Production technology | 22 nm | 22 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Core frequency, GHz | 2. 8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.1 |
Number of cores/threads | 2/2 | 2/2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 64/64 | 64/64 | 64/64 | 64/64 |
L2 cache, KB | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×256 |
L3 cache, MiB | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
RAM | 2×DDR3-1333 | 2×DDR3-1333 | 2×DDR4-2133 | 2×DDR4-2400 |
TDP, W | 55 | 53 | 51 | 54 |
Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
Integrated GPU | HD Graphics | HD Graphics | HD Graphics 510 | UHD Graphics 610 |
The main problem of such tests is to find somewhere old budget processors in the right assortment. Or at least close to what you want. Therefore, we have four Celerons, and the two newest ones are the youngest for the respective platforms, but the older ones are one of the older ones, which led to a funny (but useful today) effect: three of the four even have the same clock speeds. So much the better for comparison. Unfortunately, Sandy Bridge has not been found yet.
Intel Pentium G3260 | Intel Pentium G4400 | Intel Pentium G4560 | Intel Pentium G4620 | Intel Pentium Gold G5400 | Intel Pentium Gold G5500 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kernel name | Haswell | Skylake | Kaby Lake | Kaby Lake | Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake |
Production technology | 22 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Core frequency, GHz | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3. 7 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
Number of cores/threads | 2/2 | 2/2 | 2/4 | 2/4 | 2/4 | 2/4 |
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 64/64 | 64/64 | 64/64 | 64/64 | 64/64 | 64/64 |
L2 cache, KB | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×256 |
L3 cache, MiB | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
RAM | 2×DDR3-1333 | 2×DDR4-2133 | 2×DDR4-2400 | 2×DDR4-2400 | 2×DDR4-2400 | 2×DDR4-2400 |
TDP, W | 53 | 54 | 54 | 51 | 58 | 54 |
Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
Integrated GPU | HD Graphics | HD Graphics 510 | HD Graphics 610 | HD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 610 | UHD Graphics 630 |
And among the Pentiums — and Ivy Bridge too. In general, only models for two versions of LGA1151 are more or less widely represented. Although they are the most interesting from a practical point of view, the only significant change in the life of the Pentium since 2006 happened just here three years ago — they received support for Hyper-Threading. In fact, at that time they even became similar to the Core i3 for the same platform — only the latter have since doubled all the characteristics, and the Pentium is still like that. But it is necessary to assess the scale of the change in any case. As well as the justification for the “intersection” of Celeron and Pentium model numbers from a certain moment — the former have 1000 less than the latter, but otherwise they are similar.
Athlon 200GE | Athlon 3000G | |
---|---|---|
Kernel name | Raven Ridge | Raven Ridge |
Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Core frequency, GHz | 3. 2 | 3.5 |
Number of cores/threads | 2/4 | 2/4 |
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 128/64 | 128/64 |
L2 cache, KB | 2×512 | 2×512 |
L3 cache, MiB | 4 | 4 |
RAM | 2×DDR4-2667 | 2×DDR4-2667 |
TDP, W | 35 | 35 |
Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 4 | 4 |
Integrated GPU | Vega 3 | Vega 3 |
Everything is easier with Athlon — it’s generally not interesting to test models before 2018 (even if it worked out), since those platforms themselves conceptually belong to even more ancient times, and now AMD wants to forget processor architectures of that time even the company itself (that’s why it makes no sense to look for dual-module Athlon X4 — even though it’s the same AM4 in the latest series, but the processors themselves are consigned to oblivion) :) And from the current models, we took older and younger dual-core processors. Not the latest technology, since Athlon Gold ( does not the name remind you of anything? ) this year may be quad-core, but that’s a slightly different story. Yes, and for obvious reasons, indistinguishable from the desktop Ryzen 3 APUs, and already outdated lines — so not too interesting.
Other environments traditional: AMD Radeon Vega 56 graphics card, SATA SSD and 16 GB of DDR4 or DDR3 memory for older models. It is clear that in practice none of them will be able to find themselves in such an environment — but it is more important for us that is identical to in all tests. So that only the processors themselves change — and it is possible to tie the performance of the resulting system to them.
Test Method
Methodology for testing computer systems of the 2020 sample
The testing methodology is described in detail in a separate article, and the results of all tests are available in a separate table in Microsoft Excel format. Directly in the articles, we use the processed results: normalized with respect to the reference system (Intel Core i5-9600K with 16 GB of memory, AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card and SATA SSD) and grouped by computer application areas. Accordingly, all diagrams related to applications have dimensionless scores — so more is always better. And starting from this year, we are finally transferring game tests to an optional status (the reasons for which are discussed in detail in the description of the test methodology), so that only specialized materials will be available for them. In the main lineup there are only a couple of «processor-dependent» games in low resolution and medium quality — synthetic, of course, but conditions close to reality for testing processors are not suitable, since nothing depends on them in such conditions.
iXBT Application Benchmark 2020
In a good way, this is not a task for dual-core processors — but back to the beginning: any modern (and even not very modern) processor is capable of executing any code and solving most tasks. It’s just that budget, old and especially old budget processors are much slower than «normal» modern ones, but you can compare them — and sometimes it’s useful. Just in such extreme conditions — when they give all the best. For Celeron, where only the architecture has changed and slightly clock speeds, we observe a little more than one and a half times during the evolution — given that the G1630 is the fastest Celeron based on Ivy Bridge, and the G4900 is the slowest (except for «economical») for the «second version of LGA1151. And the G1840 was also considered the fastest model in its lineup. But a little inferior even to the slowest of the updated ones. But in any case, this is a plinth-level race.
Older Pentiums — slightly higher. Which is not surprising — the same two cores. However, in this family, right within the line for one socket, there was also a qualitative leap — in the form of the appearance of support for Hyper-Threading. Ceteris paribus, this gives about 30% performance (at full load — but in such processors there is usually no other way) — and an output to a qualitatively higher level. Globally, it is still low. But with this already can somehow live . Moreover, we note that since then nothing has changed in the family either — neither the microarchitecture, nor the nuclear formula.
As for the modern Athlon families, they were entering an already full market, so AMD picked the right place for processors in life. They cost the same as the Celeron, but are slightly inferior to the Pentium in terms of performance. They may not yield — but for this the company needs to update the microarchitecture, which is not in this segment. Although it would be time. Although instead, it seems that the company decided to first sell the remnants of old Ryzen APUs under the guise of Athlon, which can be assessed in two ways: four cores in this segment are fresh and beautiful, but most of the representatives who choose it would probably prefer two — but more efficient.
The situation in the camp of the Blues hasn’t changed in any way, and we shouldn’t expect any changes here and beyond. But the «reds» (which used to be «greens») have pulled themselves up a bit — and older Athlons can already compete almost on equal terms with Pentiums. Why? We recall that Intel is still «chopping» support for new instruction sets in such processors — even the latest Pentium Gold G6600 for LGA1200 still does not support even the first AVX ten years ago. What can we say about previous models. Not that such circumcision was necessary for something — just segmentation of the market. In our opinion, it is clearly redundant. According to AMD — too. Therefore, atlons are much more similar to «adult» processors than Celeron and Pentium. And sometimes it already affects.
Here too. Although also to a small extent, Athlon is still greatly hindered by its outdated architecture, which allows it to compete only with a “quantitative” head start. Or price — it is clear that at the same price as Celeron, the latter does not have a chance in an «honest» comparison.
Lately, we’ve been mostly praising AMD processors for speed in these programs — but it’s all about Zen2 devices, not «early versions». Athlon are still like that, so there is nothing to praise for. To scold especially, however, too — in every way it is better than Celeron and a little worse than Pentium. Moreover, the absolute results are not bad — this is almost half of the «reference» Core i5-9600K, and not a third as with more fully loaded . Therefore, by the way, the question of choosing a computer for photo processing has long ceased to be even in the forums — from the point of view of modernity, it is not such a “difficult” task. Here with video while it does not roll.
We return to the mournful and sad land. How well modern multi-core processors cope with such a load (simple integer — and easily parallelized), so dual-core processors have nothing to catch in it. Fortunately, «pure dual core» could cost several hundred dollars only 15 years ago — now this is the lot of Celeron only. They have also “grown up” over the past time, but still remain very slow solutions. Together with the old Pentiums, the last family was spurred on by Hyper-Threading support. But this was done more than three years ago — since then nothing interesting has happened.
Another case where athlons are hindered by the old architecture — as a result, they are able to overtake only processors with fewer computation threads. At the same time, if you look closely, modern Pentiums are quite good. Not in the sense that they work very fast — but because it will not work to significantly improve the result of with little blood : to double the speed, you will need a six-core processor (for 12 threads — or 8C / 8T), and an eight-core processor will not triple it a little . But it’s not difficult to «fail» a couple of times — on the same two cores, just without HT, this is achievable. It’s kinda inflection point — when further productivity starts to grow too slowly, lagging behind the price increase. Well, the fact that such a processor is generally inexpensive leads to the fact that such loads become of little interest for comparing processors. Nothing much to compare. With the exception of the budget segment — there, as we see, there is.
The name of this group of tests is combined with today’s heroes in a funny way — but, as we see, there is nothing sacred in it. Perhaps the increase from Hyper-Threading is more modest, and the influence of new instruction sets (supported by Athlon, but not by Pentium/Celeron) is more significant, but everything is within the general framework. Actually, what has already been said is that specific measuring tools are not so important for comparing performance. Even synthetics can work — with careful and competent use. Moreover, real applications — regardless of the purpose, they behave in a similar way, differing only in the degree of optimization for certain features of processors.
The general is not too different from the particular. For a long time, Pentiums only slightly differed from Celerons in terms of frequency and cache memory capacity, so in the process of creeping growth, the second family has already crawled up to the first five-year-old one in terms of performance. But three years ago, Pentium was pulled up a little — to the level of the then Core i3. Haven’t been touched since. Although the same Core i3 “doubled” during this time, and the Core i5 completely “fatted” from 4C / 4T to 6C / 12T — nothing like this was observed in the budget segment. What makes the Pentium 9 unique0025 plug for socket . Previously, this title was proudly held by Celeron, but now it doesn’t deserve it either: against the backdrop of the cost of the system, the difference in price between these two families of processors can be considered absent, but not in performance.
The
Athlon at first glance occupies a favorable position between these two families of Intel processors, at prices rather reminiscent of Celeron — but with performance closer to Pentium. Launch of quad-core models such as the Athlon Gold Pro 3150G ( although in themselves such names deserve death from leeches to those who invent them 🙂 ) should further strengthen the position of this line. Although in fact, the architecture update is much more overdue here. Otherwise, it also turns out a strange plug for socket , which is incompatible with many modern motherboards (for example, in the Gigabyte model on the B550 chipset, “sticking” old Ryzen and any Athlon is a stupid task — they will not work) — in the modern world, the level of entropy is off scale .
Power Consumption and Energy Efficiency
It is clear that processors with such performance can’t eat much in modern conditions. It is worth paying attention, perhaps, to the fact that in their case the “average” energy consumption” is very close to the “maximum”, that is, our today’s heroes are 100% loaded with work almost always, and not occasionally. The addition of support for Hyper-Threading increased the «utilization» of processors — however, the power consumption of older Pentiums does not exceed Athlon — and in both cases is lower than for older Pentiums on coarser technical processes. Well, Celeron diligently tends to zero — the clock speeds could be increased and much stronger as evolution progresses. Although this would not have saved him, of course — two «clean» cores are not enough for a long time.
But low power consumption does not guarantee high energy efficiency — a lot depends on performance. In this regard, multi-core models are much more interesting — especially the younger ones, where you don’t have to “lift up” the clock frequencies too much. In terms of output per watt, dual cores have become better than they were 10 years ago, and if you remember all sorts of Pentium D or Athlon 64 X2, they are incomparably better. But no more.
Games
As already mentioned in the description of the methodology, it makes no sense to keep the «classic approach» to testing gaming performance — since video cards have long been determining not only it, but also significantly affect the cost of the system, you need to «dance» exclusively from them. And from the games themselves — too: in modern conditions, fixing a game set for a long time does not make sense, since literally everything can change with the next update. But we will carry out a brief test in (albeit) relatively synthetic conditions — using a couple of games in the «processor-dependent» mode. Although it is not for all participants today, we have already made sure that Celeron cannot be considered a gaming solution in principle: many games (even not the most modern ones) demonstrate a depressingly low frame rate with any video card. But the results for G4900 is — and taking into account this fact, we simply did not test other «pure» dual-core processors.
However, in modern game projects, 2C/4T is not a gift (and four “clean” cores are sometimes already too), but at least everything is launched on them for now. Only now it does not work quickly. From which, of course, it does not follow that the owner of a budget computer will have nothing to play with — in fact, the video card will limit it much more, since no one will use something powerful in tandem with a Pentium. The old game projects remain — and in them, the dual-core models felt great. Some kind of «starting point» can most likely be considered 2017 — before that, game manufacturers were forced to take into account the presence of processors with a nuclear formula 2C / 4T among users, since so many laptop models were such (up to Core i7), and desktop «middle peasants», but then the race of cores began. Therefore, modern budget processors in this regard have «doubled» — but only if we talk about Core and Ryzen. Athlon and Pentium are still in the past for the most part, but Celeron … you can simply not remember.
Total
As you can see, in the budget segment, life also did not stop, but the pace of progress in it turned out to be much slower. Any noticeable changes — the appearance of Athlon «latest series» and endowing Pentium with Hyper-Threading support. That’s all. Intel itself drove the Celeron family into such a state that, perhaps, it’s time to stop bullying the little animal. Since the company so wants to keep this trademark, it’s better to assemble desktop «atomic» processors under it. Then, at the same time, the division of Pentium into Gold and Silver can be abolished (which will also reduce the mess). It will be just a Pentium like the younger is a plug for socket , which is quite suitable for simple loads, and Celeron are only BGA models of a simplified architecture, immediately warning the buyer by their very name what they will encounter when buying.
Testing budget processors AMD Athlon and Intel Celeron and Pentium in comparison with A-series APUs, Core i3 and Ryzen 3
Yes, and AMD would have to put things in order. The next line of Athlons was an obvious step forward, which could not but be welcomed: these processors are somewhat slower than Pentiums, but cheaper. Plus, a modern GPU is not too fast, but it supports HDMI 2.0 and modern video formats. Therefore, we really liked the first-born of the line at the time. Only this was two years ago, when all AMD models used the same (to a first approximation) microarchitecture and worked on the same boards. Now the socket has remained the same — but compatibility is not easy: not all new boards are suitable for such processors. And the efficiency of the «old» cores is low, which is also not encouraging. Especially against the background of the fact that the new Ryzen 3 APUs are four dual-threaded cores of the new microarchitecture, and it will not work everywhere by simply renaming the “old” Ryzen 3 to Athlon.
On the other hand, it is clear that budget processors live by their own laws. Moreover, Ryzen 3 and Core i3 are considered budget AMD and Intel, respectively — and Athlon, Celeron and Pentium are increasingly becoming things in themselves and are created according to the residual principle. But at the same time, they are still being produced, and restoring order in their ranks is very much requested. Otherwise, the meaning of the existence of these families becomes more and more vague — especially as simple tasks are more and more often solved by non-desktop computers.
AMD Athlon II X2 340 vs. Intel Core i3-2130
AMD Athlon II X2 340
AMD Athlon II X2 340 runs with 2 and 2 CPU threads It runs at 3.60 GHz base 3.60 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 65 W . CPU socket FM2 This version includes 1.00 MB of L3 cache on a single die, supports 1 to support DDR3-1600 RAM, and supports PCIe Gen . Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, the Trinity Architecture has been advanced over 32 nm and supports None . The product was launched Q4/2012
Intel Core i3-2130
Intel Core i3-2130 runs with 2 and 2 CPU threads It runs on No turbo base No turbo all cores while TDP is set to 65 W .CPU connects to LGA 1155 CPU socket This version includes 3.00 MB of L3 cache on a single chip, supports 2 to support DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 RAM and supports 2.0 PCIe Gen 16 . Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, Sandy Bridge S Architecture is advanced over 32 nm and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT . The product was launched Q3/2011
AMD Athlon II X2 340
Intel Core i3-2130
Intel HD Graphics 2000
DDR3-1333
Show more details
Show more details
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
Theoretical processing performance of the processor’s internal graphics unit with simple precision (32 bits) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS specifies how many billions of floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the processors listed below have been tested with CPU-Comparison. However, most of the processors were not tested and the results were evaluated by the secret patented CPU-Comparison formula. As such, they do not accurately reflect the actual values of Passmark CPU ratings and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.