Athlon 64 2000+ vs Atom N455

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Atom N455 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 2000+

1 / 1

330

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Atom N455

1 / 2

345

+4.5%

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.

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Atom N455 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.

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Atom N455: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon 64 2000+

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 8W instead of 512W, a 504W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom N455 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (330 vs 345).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Atom N455 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom N455 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Atom N455

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 3150, while Athlon 64 2000+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌6300% higher power demand at 512W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom N455 better than Athlon 64 2000+?

Yes. Atom N455 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 12.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom N455 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 12.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom N455 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom N455 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom N455 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 12.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 2000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM2.

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

Atom N455 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 2000+ vs Atom N455 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 2000+

The Athlon 64 2000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lima (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 330 points. Launch price was $149.

Atom N455

The Atom N455 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Pinetrail (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.66 GHz, with boost up to 1.67 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 6.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $64.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 2000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, matching the Atom N455's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus 1.67 GHz on the Atom N455 — a 50.2% clock advantage for the Atom N455. The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the Lima (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Atom N455 uses Pinetrail (2009−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 2000+ scores 330 against the Atom N455's 345 — a 4.4% lead for the Atom N455. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 2000+	Atom N455
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	1.67 GHz+67%
Base Clock	—	1.66 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512K (per core)
Process	65 nm	45 nm-31%
Architecture	Lima (2008−2009)	Pinetrail (2009−2011)
PassMark	330	345+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 2000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom N455 uses FCBGA559 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-400 on the Athlon 64 2000+ versus DDR3-667 on the Atom N455 — the Atom N455 supports 66.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 2000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 1 (Atom N455). PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon 64 2000+) vs 0 (Atom N455) — the Athlon 64 2000+ offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 2000+) and Intel NM10 (Atom N455).

Feature	Athlon 64 2000+	Atom N455
Socket	AM2	FCBGA559
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-400	DDR3-667+67%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+700%	2 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0