CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 250 vs 1600 among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

3.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Athlon II X2 250 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Athlon II X2 250  based on its performance and single-core performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Athlon II X2 250

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon II X2 250

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Much better PassMark score 1,750 vs 561 More than 3x better PassMark score
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,008 vs 635 Around 60% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,690 vs 1,012 Around 2.8x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 2 vs 1 Twice as many threads
Much better performance per watt 1.79 pt/W vs 1.05 pt/W More than 70% better performance per watt
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 74 °C vs 55 °C Around 35% higher Maximum operating temperature
Front view of AMD Athlon 1600

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon 1600

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 36.56W vs 52.81W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 39.42 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Athlon II X2 250 vs 1600

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Athlon II X2 250  vs
1600 
Clock speed 3 GHz 2.2 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
AM3
AM2
462
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
ABM
CVT16
AMD-V
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM

power consumption

TDP 65W 45W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 10.84 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 39.42 $/year
Performance per watt 1.79 pt/W 1.05 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 36.56W

details

Athlon II X2 250  vs
1600 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 0 MB 0 MB
L3 cache per core 0 MB/core 0 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 74°C Unknown - 55°C

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus

Clock speed 2,000 MHz 266 MHz
AMD Athlon II X2 250
Report a correction
AMD Athlon 1600
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus