Athlon II X4 651 vs Xeon E3-1265L v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E3-1265L v2 outperforms Athlon II X4 651 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1515 | 1725 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.08 | 0.23 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 14 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 14 November 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $142 | no data |
| Current price | $90 (0.6x MSRP) | $234 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E3-1265L v2 has 804% better value for money than Athlon II X4 651.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 228 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651 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 | 1155 | FM1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD 2500 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 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.
Xeon E3-1265L v2 outperforms Athlon II X4 651 by 42% based on our aggregate 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%
Xeon E3-1265L v2 outperforms Athlon II X4 651 by 43% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon E3-1265L v2 outperforms Athlon II X4 651 by 61% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon E3-1265L v2 outperforms Athlon II X4 651 by 64% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.30 | 2.32 |
| Recency | 14 May 2012 | 14 November 2011 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 100 Watt |
Xeon E3-1265L v2 has a 42.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, 100% more threads, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 122.2% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E3-1265L v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 651 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E3-1265L v2 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon II X4 651 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Athlon II X4 651, 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.
