Athlon II N350 vs Athlon II P320
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II N350 outperforms Athlon II P320 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2959 | 2908 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Athlon II | AMD Athlon II |
| Power efficiency | 1.66 | 1.30 |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Champlain (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 4 October 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 117.5 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 234 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350 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.
| Socket | S1g4 | S1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE-3, SSE4A, 3DNow!, MMX, DEP, SVM | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.44 | 0.48 |
| Recency | 12 May 2010 | 4 October 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
Athlon II P320 has 40% lower power consumption.
Athlon II N350, on the other hand, has a 9.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II P320 and Athlon II N350, 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.
