Winner
Intel Core i5 4200U
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4200U based on its performance, single-core performance and power consumption.
See full details Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD Athlon II X2 250 |
Released July, 2013
Intel Core i5 4200U
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
8.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i5 4200U
 | Much better performance per watt 38.06 pt/W | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm | | Much lower typical power consumption 12.19W |
VS
Released June, 2009
AMD Athlon II X2 250
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
5.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD Athlon II X2 250
| | Much higher clock speed 3 GHz | | Much more l2 cache 2 MB |
| | Significantly higher turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz | | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core |
by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2009)Benchmark Results: Looking at POV-Ray 3.7 Beta 25, the benchmark showed the Phenom II X2 550 was 3 seconds quicker than the Athlon II X2 250.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4200U 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 | |
| 8.3 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core i5 4200UCPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better performance per watt | 38.06 pt/W | vs | 1.79 pt/W | Around 21.2x better performance per watt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 32 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 12.19W | vs | 52.81W | 4.3x lower typical power consumption | |||
| 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 | |||
| More l3 cache | 3 MB | vs | 0 MB | Compared to all cpus, 3 MB l3 cache is just OK | |||
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 100 °C | vs | 74 °C | More than 35% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2013 | vs | Jun, 2009 | Release date over 4 years later | |||
| Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 4,464 | vs | 2,814 | Around 60% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,380 | vs | 1,008 | More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 13.14 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | 4.3x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 3.61 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | 4.3x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 85% higher clock speed | |||
| Much more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 3.6 GHz | vs | 2.6 GHz | Around 40% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.72 GHz | vs | 2.49 GHz | Around 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.04 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4200U 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)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i5 4200U | vs | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| 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 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| XOP | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| BMI1 | |||
| AMD64 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| FMA4 | |||
| FMA3 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| ABM | |||
| CVT16 | |||
| AMD-V | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| TBM | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 15W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 3.61 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 13.14 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 38.06 pt/W | 1.79 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 12.19W | 52.81W | |
details | Core i5 4200U | vs | Athlon II X2 250 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 3 MB | 0 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 0 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 100°C | Unknown - 74°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.49 GHz | 3.72 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.6 GHz | 4.04 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 1,713.3 | 2,374.3 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.49 GHz | 3.72 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4400 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 200 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,000 MHz | N/A | |
 Intel Core i5 4200U  Report a correction |  AMD Athlon II X2 250 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs 4200M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs i7 4500U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs 3230M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A10 5745M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $160 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A10 7300 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| AMD Athlon II X2 250 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| Intel Xeon W3520 vs Core i5 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | ||
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs AMD A12 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||
| | VS | |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9420 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| Intel Core i5 3470 vs AMD A6 5200 | ||
