Athlon 64 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo T5200

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo T5200 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 4000+

1 / 1

675

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Duo T5200

2 / 2

705

+4.4%

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 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo T5200 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 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo T5200: 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 4000+

2001

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core 2 Duo T5200 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (675 vs 705).
❌Launch MSRP is still $482 MSRP, while Core 2 Duo T5200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌4350% higher power demand at 89W vs 2W.

Core 2 Duo T5200

2006

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 89W, a 87W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Duo T5200 better than Athlon 64 4000+?

Yes. Core 2 Duo T5200 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4.4% 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, Core 2 Duo T5200 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.8% 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, Core 2 Duo T5200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Core 2 Duo T5200 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core 2 Duo T5200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $482 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 4000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (1.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 939.

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

Core 2 Duo T5200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2006 vs 2001) and more multi-core headroom with 2 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 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo T5200 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 4000+

The Athlon 64 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $160.

Core 2 Duo T5200

The Core 2 Duo T5200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.66 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: BGA479. Thermal design power (TDP): 34 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Core 2 Duo T5200 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Core 2 Duo T5200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 1.66 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T5200 — a 44.1% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Core 2 Duo T5200 uses Merom (2006−2008) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Core 2 Duo T5200's 705 — a 4.3% lead for the Core 2 Duo T5200. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	Core 2 Duo T5200
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+57%	1.66 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K+25500%	2 MB
Process	130 nm	65 nm-50%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	Merom (2006−2008)
PassMark	675	705+4%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Duo T5200 uses BGA479 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.