AMD Turion II M520 vs Athlon II X2 250 |
Released September, 2009
AMD Turion II M520
- 2.3 GHz
- Dual core
5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD Turion II M520
 | Significantly lower typical power consumption 28.44W | | Significantly lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year |
| | Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year | | Better performance per watt 2.51 pt/W |
VS
Released June, 2009
AMD Athlon II X2 250
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Athlon II X2 250
| | Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,690 | | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB |
| | Higher clock speed 3 GHz | | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of M520 vs 250 among all 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 | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
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? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | AMD Athlon II X2 250CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly lower typical power consumption | 28.44W | vs | 52.81W | More than 45% lower typical power consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | More than 45% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Better performance per watt | 2.51 pt/W | vs | 1.79 pt/W | Around 40% better performance per watt | |||
| Newer | Sep, 2009 | vs | Jun, 2009 | Release date 3 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | 2,690 | vs | 1,971 | More than 35% better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | |||
| Significantly 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 | |||
| Higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.3 GHz | More than 30% higher clock speed | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.72 GHz | vs | 2.43 GHz | Around 55% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better geekbench 3 single core score | 1,524 | vs | 1,176 | Around 30% better geekbench 3 single core score | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.04 GHz | vs | 2.3 GHz | More than 75% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Turion II M520 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
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Turion II M520 | vs | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| S1 | |||
| AM3 | |||
| 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 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 35W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 2.51 pt/W | 1.79 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 52.81W | |
details | Turion II M520 | vs | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.43 GHz | 3.72 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.3 GHz | 4.04 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.43 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 | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 400 MHz | 2,000 MHz | |
 AMD Turion II M520  Report a correction |  AMD Athlon II X2 250 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| Intel Core i5 2500 vs Xeon W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A8 6410 vs Intel Core i5 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 vs Intel Core i5 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| Intel Pentium N3540 vs Core i3 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| AMD A6 5200 vs Intel Core i5 3470 | ||
