Athlon 64 X2 4200+ vs Turion 64 X2 TL-50
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ outperforms Turion 64 X2 TL-50 by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Turion 64 X2 TL-50 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3068 | 2925 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | 2x AMD Turion 64 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.01 | 0.49 |
| Architecture codename | Taylor (2006) | Manchester (2005−2006) |
| Release date | 17 May 2006 (18 years ago) | December 2006 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $154 | $309 |
Detailed specifications
Turion 64 X2 TL-50 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 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 | 1.6 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 256K |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 147 mm2 | 220 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 154 Million | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Turion 64 X2 TL-50 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | S1 | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Turion 64 X2 TL-50 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE(1,2,3), AMD64 | 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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 0.46 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 31 Watt | 89 Watt |
Turion 64 X2 TL-50 has 187.1% lower power consumption.
Athlon 64 X2 4200+, on the other hand, has a 39.4% higher aggregate performance score.
The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ is our recommended choice as it beats the Turion 64 X2 TL-50 in performance tests.
Be aware that Turion 64 X2 TL-50 is a notebook processor while Athlon 64 X2 4200+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Turion 64 X2 TL-50 and Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 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.
