Athlon II Neo K125 vs C-70

Athlon II Neo K125 vs C-70 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K125

1 / 1

1,491

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

C-70

2 / 2

1,495

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

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.

Athlon II Neo K125 vs C-70 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 II Neo K125 vs C-70: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon II Neo K125

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 9W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,491 vs 1,495).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while C-70 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while C-70 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

C-70

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 7290, while Athlon II Neo K125 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌800% higher power demand at 9W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II Neo K125 better than C-70?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon II Neo K125 is ahead with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, C-70 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, C-70 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?

Athlon II Neo K125 is the better buy right now. Athlon II Neo K125 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that C-70 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.3% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (14.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

C-70 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010) 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 II Neo K125 vs C-70 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K125

The Athlon II Neo K125 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Geneva (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.7 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: 1,491 points. Launch price was $149.

C-70

The C-70 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ontario (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 1,495 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II Neo K125 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the C-70 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the C-70 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K125 versus 1.33 GHz on the C-70 — a 24.4% clock advantage for the Athlon II Neo K125. The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the Geneva (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the C-70 uses Ontario (2011−2012) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K125 scores 1,491 against the C-70's 1,495 — a 0.3% lead for the C-70.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K125	C-70
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz+28%	1.33 GHz
Base Clock	—	1 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	512K (per core)+51100%
Process	45 nm	40 nm-11%
Architecture	Geneva (2010)	Ontario (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,491	1,495

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K125 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the C-70 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Athlon II Neo K125 versus DDR3-1066 on the C-70 — the C-70 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon II Neo K125) vs 1 (C-70). PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II Neo K125) vs 4 (C-70) — the C-70 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB2 (Athlon II Neo K125) and AMD BGA413 (C-70).