Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo P9700

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo P9700 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

2 / 2

1,175

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Duo P9700

2 / 2

1,178

+0.3%

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 X2 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo P9700 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 X2 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo P9700: 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 X2 4000+

2006

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Core 2 Duo P9700.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,175 vs 1,178).
❌Launch MSRP is still $328 MSRP, while Core 2 Duo P9700 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌217.9% higher power demand at 89W vs 28W.

Core 2 Duo P9700

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 28W instead of 89W, a 61W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon 64 X2 4000+.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 2 Duo P9700 better than Athlon 64 X2 4000+?

Yes. Core 2 Duo P9700 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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 P9700 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% 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 P9700 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Core 2 Duo P9700 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core 2 Duo P9700 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $328 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 X2 4000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Core 2 Duo P9700 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs Core 2 Duo P9700 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon 64 X2 4000+

The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: AM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,175 points. Launch price was $149.

Core 2 Duo P9700

The Core 2 Duo P9700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 June 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 28 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,178 points. Launch price was $348.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and Core 2 Duo P9700 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ versus 2.8 GHz on the Core 2 Duo P9700 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Core 2 Duo P9700. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture (90 nm), while the Core 2 Duo P9700 uses Penryn (2008−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ scores 1,175 against the Core 2 Duo P9700's 1,178 — a 0.3% lead for the Core 2 Duo P9700. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo P9700.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Core 2 Duo P9700
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.8 GHz+40%
Base Clock	—	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	6 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512K+8433%	6 MB (total)
Process	90 nm	45 nm-50%
Architecture	Windsor (2006−2007)	Penryn (2008−2011)
PassMark	1,175	1,178
Geekbench 6 Single	195	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	380	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ uses the AM2 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core 2 Duo P9700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 64 X2 4000+	Core 2 Duo P9700
Socket	AM2	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon 64 X2 4000+) / not specified (Core 2 Duo P9700). Primary use case: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ targets Legacy Desktop.