Amd athlon ii x2 vs intel pentium: AMD Athlon II X2 270 vs Intel Pentium G4560: What is the difference?

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

CPU 1
CPU 2


PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1
CPU 2


Geekbench 4 — Single Core

CPU 1
CPU 2


Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core

CPU 1
CPU 2







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

  • 128KB more L1 cache?
    256KB vs 128KB
  • 0. 75MB/core more L2 cache per core?
    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

    Release date

    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
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    PassMark — CPU mark
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    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

    configuration

    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
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    PassMark — CPU mark
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    Geekbench 4 — Single Core
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    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

    configuration

    The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

    Speed ​​in office use

    Athlon II X2 255

    45.7 (+33%)

    Pentium 4 3.80GHz

    30.6

    Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office programs.

    The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

    Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

    Speed ​​in heavy applications

    Athlon II X2 255

    20.1 (+34.3%)

    Pentium 4 3.80GHz

    13.2

    maximum

    The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

    At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

    Speed ​​of numerical operations

    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

    configuration options

    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

    Frequency 3. 40 GHz 2 Cores 2 3.60GHz Turbo (1 core) No turbo 3.60GHz Turbo (all cores) No turbo No. Hyper Threading Yes Yes Overclocking No. normal Basic architecture normal no iGPU GPU

    Intel HD Graphics 2000

    no turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.10 GHz 32nm Technology 32 nm no turbo GPU (Turbo) 1.10 GHz DirectX Version 10.1 Max. displays 2 DDR3-1600 memory size DDR3-1066
    DDR3-1333 1 Memory channels 2 Maximum memory No. ECC No. — L2 Cache — 1.00MB L3 Cache 3.00 MB PCIe version 2.0 PCIe lanes 16 32nm Technology 32 nm FM2 Connector LGA 1155 65 W TDP 65W None Virtualization VT-x, VT-x EPT Q4/2012 Release date Q3/2011

    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.