Winner
AMD Phenom II X4 965
CPUBoss recommends the AMD Phenom II X4 965 based on its overclocking.
See full details AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs Athlon II X2 250 |
Released November, 2009
AMD Phenom II X4 965
- 3.4 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
4.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD Phenom II X4 965
 | Much more l3 cache 6 MB | | Is unlocked Yes |
| | Significantly higher clock speed 3.4 GHz | | More cores 4 |
VS
Released June, 2009
AMD Athlon II X2 250
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
3.6 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Athlon II X2 250
| | Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W | | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm |
| | Much better performance per watt 1.79 pt/W | | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 965 vs 250 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 | |
| 4.2 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l3 cache | 6 MB | vs | 0 MB | Compared to all cpus, 6 MB l3 cache is just OK | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 3.4 GHz | vs | 3 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | vs | 0 MB/core | Compared to all cpus, 1.5 MB/core l3 cache per core is just OK | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.05 GHz | vs | 3.72 GHz | Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 4.04 GHz | Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 152.93W | 2.9x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 1.79 pt/W | vs | 1.08 pt/W | More than 65% better performance per watt | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 74 °C | vs | 62 °C | Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 54.06 $/year | 3.5x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 152.42 $/year | 2.7x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Phenom II X4 965 vs Athlon II X2 250
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Reviews Word on the street
| Phenom II X4 965 | vs | Athlon II X2 250 | ||
 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||
Overall | Out of 10 | Out of 10 | ||
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Phenom II X4 965 | vs | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 0 GHz | 3.6 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| AM3 | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | 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 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 140W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 54.06 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 152.42 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.08 pt/W | 1.79 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 152.93W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 2,000 MHz | 2,000 MHz | |
details | Phenom II X4 965 | vs | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 6 MB | 0 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 0 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.43V | 0.85 - 1.43V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 62°C | Unknown - 74°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 22 | 25 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.05 GHz | 3.72 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.22 GHz | 4.04 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 3,136.7 | 2,374.3 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.05 GHz | 3.72 GHz | |
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 | |
 AMD Phenom II X4 965  Report a correction |  AMD Athlon II X2 250 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| 250 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| 250 vs E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 250 vs 5000+ | ||
| | VS |  |
| $99 | ||
| 250 vs 2450M | ||
 | VS |  |
| $200 | $100 | |
| 965 vs 6300 | ||
| | VS | |
| $200 | $125 | |
| 965 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | ||
| 965 vs 640 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
