Athlon II X2 255 vs Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Athlon II X2 255 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2658 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.08 |
| Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2007) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 25 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $60 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Athlon II X2 255 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 117 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 410 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Athlon II X2 255 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Athlon II X2 255. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ and Athlon II X2 255.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 45 nm |
Athlon II X2 255 has a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and Athlon II X2 255. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and Athlon II X2 255, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
