Athlon 240GE vs i5-3550S
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 240GE outperforms Core i5-3550S by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1694 | 1676 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.27 | 3.42 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Athlon |
| Power efficiency | 4.05 | 7.71 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 29 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 21 December 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $350 | $75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon 240GE has 1167% better value for money than i5-3550S.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6144 KB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 69 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | AMD Radeon Vega 3 |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.15 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
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 | 2.78 | 2.85 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.69 | 2.98 |
| Recency | 29 April 2012 | 21 December 2018 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
i5-3550S has 100% more physical cores.
Athlon 240GE, on the other hand, has a 2.5% higher aggregate performance score, 331.9% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 6 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-3550S and Athlon 240GE, 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.
