Athlon II X2 255 vs Phenom II X2 550
Aggregated performance score
Athlon II X2 255 outperforms Phenom II X2 550 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing Phenom II X2 550 and Athlon II X2 255 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2528 | 2518 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 3.55 | 0.02 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Callisto (2009−2010) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| Release date | November 2009 (14 years old) | 25 January 2010 (14 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $133 | $60 |
| Current price | $26 (0.2x MSRP) | $57 (1x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance per price, higher is better.
Phenom II X2 550 has 17650% better value for money than Athlon II X2 255.
Technical specs
Phenom II X2 550 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 | 3.1 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 258 mm2 | 117 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 758 million | 410 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X2 550 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X2 550 and Athlon II X2 255. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X2 550 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.
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 X2 255 outperforms Phenom II X2 550 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Athlon II X2 255 outperforms Phenom II X2 550 by 1% in Passmark.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 0.75 | 0.76 |
| Cost | $133 | $60 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Phenom II X2 550 and Athlon II X2 255. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X2 550 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.
