Athlon 64 3200+ vs Athlon II X2 255
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X2 255 outperforms Athlon 64 3200+ by a whopping 289% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X2 255 and Athlon 64 3200+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2679 | 3245 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 0.20 |
| Architecture codename | Regor (2009−2013) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 25 January 2010 (14 years ago) | January 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $60 | $150 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X2 255 and Athlon 64 3200+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 117 mm2 | 193 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 410 million | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X2 255 and Athlon 64 3200+ 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3 | 754 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 89 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X2 255 and Athlon 64 3200+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X2 255 and Athlon 64 3200+.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
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 | 0.74 | 0.19 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 89 Watt |
Athlon II X2 255 has a 289.5% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 36.9% lower power consumption.
The Athlon II X2 255 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 3200+ in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X2 255 and Athlon 64 3200+, 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.
