A10-9700 vs Athlon II X4 651

CPU

GPU

A10-9700

4 Cores4 Thrd65 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2017

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Athlon II X4 651

4 Cores4 Thrd100 WWMax: 3 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A10-9700 vs Athlon II X4 651 Performance Spectrum

A10-9700

4 / 4

3,555

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon II X4 651

4 / 4

3,584

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A10-9700 vs Athlon II X4 651 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A10-9700 vs Athlon II X4 651: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A10-9700

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 100W, a 35W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R7, while Athlon II X4 651 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Athlon II X4 651.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,555 vs 3,584).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 21.0 vs 39.0 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $92 MSRP).

Athlon II X4 651

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $77 less on MSRP ($92 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
✅Delivers 85.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 39.0 vs 21.0 PassMark/$ ($92 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌53.8% higher power demand at 100W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A10-9700 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A10-9700.

Quick Answers

So, is A10-9700 better than Athlon II X4 651?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A10-9700 is ahead with a 2.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II X4 651 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II X4 651 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

A10-9700 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A10-9700 comes in 83.7% more expensive on MSRP at $169 MSRP versus $92 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II X4 651 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 85.2% better value on paper (39.0 vs 21.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on FM1.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A10-9700 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A10-9700 vs Athlon II X4 651 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A10-9700

The A10-9700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,555 points. Launch price was $90.

Athlon II X4 651

The Athlon II X4 651 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 100 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,584 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A10-9700 and Athlon II X4 651 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A10-9700 versus 3 GHz on the Athlon II X4 651 — a 23.5% clock advantage for the A10-9700 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3 GHz). The A10-9700 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Athlon II X4 651 uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A10-9700 scores 3,555 against the Athlon II X4 651's 3,584 — a 0.8% lead for the Athlon II X4 651. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A10-9700	Athlon II X4 651
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+27%	3 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+17%	3 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+100%	1 MB (per core)
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Llano (2011−2012)
PassMark	3,555	3,584
Geekbench 6 Single	642	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-9700 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon II X4 651 uses FM1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the A10-9700 versus DDR3-1866 on the Athlon II X4 651 — the A10-9700 supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A10-9700 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 8 (A10-9700) vs 16 (Athlon II X4 651) — the Athlon II X4 651 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A320,B350,X370 (A10-9700) and AMD FM1 (Athlon II X4 651).

Feature	A10-9700	Athlon II X4 651
Socket	AM4	FM1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+29%	DDR3-1866
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+300%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A10-9700) / not specified (Athlon II X4 651). The A10-9700 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R7), while the Athlon II X4 651 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-9700 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A10-9700 rivals Pentium G4560.

Feature	A10-9700	Athlon II X4 651
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Radeon R7	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A10-9700 was priced at $169, while the Athlon II X4 651 came in at $92. On launch pricing ($169 vs $92), Athlon II X4 651 was $77 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A10-9700 delivers 21.0 pts/$ vs 39.0 pts/$ for the Athlon II X4 651 — making the Athlon II X4 651 the 59.7% better value option.

Feature	A10-9700	Athlon II X4 651
MSRP	$169	$92-46%
Performance per Dollar	21.0	39.0+86%
Release Date	2017	2011

Search A10-9700 on Amazon

Search Athlon II X4 651 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.