
Athlon II N350 vs Athlon II X2 220

Athlon II N350

Athlon II X2 220
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon II N350 is positioned at rank 1067 and the Athlon II X2 220 is on rank 561, so the Athlon II X2 220 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II N350
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 220
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II N350 | Athlon II X2 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Champlain (2010−2011) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II N350 | Athlon II X2 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+901%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($100) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon II N350 and Athlon II X2 220

Athlon II N350
The Athlon II N350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Champlain (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,045 points. Launch price was $149.

Athlon II X2 220
The Athlon II X2 220 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,046 points. Launch price was $32.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II N350 and Athlon II X2 220 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon II N350 versus 2.8 GHz on the Athlon II X2 220 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 220. The Athlon II N350 uses the Champlain (2010−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Athlon II X2 220 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II N350 scores 1,045 against the Athlon II X2 220's 1,046 — a 0.1% lead for the Athlon II X2 220. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 210 vs 285, a 30.3% lead for the Athlon II X2 220 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 400 vs 500 (22.2% advantage for the Athlon II X2 220).
| Feature | Athlon II N350 | Athlon II X2 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.8 GHz+17% |
| Base Clock | — | 2.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB |
| Process | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Champlain (2010−2011) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,045 | 1,046 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 210 | 285+36% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 400 | 500+25% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II N350 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon II X2 220 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Athlon II N350 versus 1333 on the Athlon II X2 220 — the Athlon II X2 220 supports 199.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 220 supports up to 16 of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: RS880M,SB850 (Athlon II N350) and AM2+,AM3 (Athlon II X2 220).
| Feature | Athlon II N350 | Athlon II X2 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | S1 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | 1333+44333% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB+52428700% | 16 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon II N350) vs true (Athlon II X2 220). Primary use case: Athlon II N350 targets Legacy Laptop. Direct competitor: Athlon II N350 rivals Pentium P6100; Athlon II X2 220 rivals Pentium E5500.
| Feature | Athlon II N350 | Athlon II X2 220 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Legacy Laptop | — |
Value Analysis
The Athlon II N350 launched at $100 MSRP, while the Athlon II X2 220 debuted at $32. At current prices ($100 vs $10), the Athlon II X2 220 is $90 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II N350 delivers 10.4 pts/$ vs 104.6 pts/$ for the Athlon II X2 220 — making the Athlon II X2 220 the 163.7% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II N350 | Athlon II X2 220 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $32-68% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $10-90% |
| Performance per Dollar | 10.4 | 104.6+906% |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















