Turion II Neo K685 vs Athlon II P320

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II P320
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 25 Watt
0.44
+2.3%
Turion II Neo K685
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
0.43

Athlon II P320 outperforms Turion II Neo K685 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29442953
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Athlon IIAMD Turion II Neo
Power efficiency1.672.71
Architecture codenameChamplain (2010−2011)Geneva (2010)
Release date12 May 2010 (14 years ago)15 December 2010 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate3200 MHz3200 MHz
L1 cache256 KB256 KB
L2 cache1 MB1 MB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685 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.

SocketS1g4S1g4
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE-3, SSE4A, 3DNow!, MMX, DEP, SVMMMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

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.

Athlon II P320 0.44
+2.3%
Turion II Neo K685 0.43

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.

Athlon II P320 695
+1.6%
Turion II Neo K685 684

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Athlon II P320 1776
+24.7%
Turion II Neo K685 1424

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Athlon II P320 3499
+13.5%
Turion II Neo K685 3083

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Athlon II P320 1674
+15.4%
Turion II Neo K685 1451

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Athlon II P320 36.45
+15.2%
Turion II Neo K685 42

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Athlon II P320 1
+8.7%
Turion II Neo K685 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.44 0.43
Recency 12 May 2010 15 December 2010
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 15 Watt

Athlon II P320 has a 2.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Turion II Neo K685, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II P320 and Turion II Neo K685, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon II P320
Athlon II P320
AMD Turion II Neo K685
Turion II Neo K685

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 75 votes

Rate Athlon II P320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1 vote

Rate Turion II Neo K685 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II P320 or Turion II Neo K685, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.