Athlon II Neo K145 vs Turion 64 MT-40

Athlon II Neo K145 vs Turion 64 MT-40 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K145

1 / 1

565

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Turion 64 MT-40

1 / 1

600

+6.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

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 K145 vs Turion 64 MT-40 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 K145 vs Turion 64 MT-40: 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 K145

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Turion 64 MT-40 across 14 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (565 vs 600).
❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while Turion 64 MT-40 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 MT-40

2005

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.1% higher average FPS across 14 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 MT-40 better than Athlon II Neo K145?

Yes. Turion 64 MT-40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.1% average FPS lead across 14 shared CPU game tests in our data and 6.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Turion 64 MT-40 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.1% more average FPS across 14 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Turion 64 MT-40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 MT-40 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion 64 MT-40 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.1% average FPS lead across 14 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II Neo K145 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (11.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on S1.

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

Athlon II Neo K145 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2005). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon II Neo K145 vs Turion 64 MT-40 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K145

The Athlon II Neo K145 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Nile (2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 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: 565 points. Launch price was $149.

Turion 64 MT-40

The Turion 64 MT-40 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Lancaster (2005−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 600 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon II Neo K145 and Turion 64 MT-40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K145 versus 2.2 GHz on the Turion 64 MT-40 — a 20% clock advantage for the Turion 64 MT-40. The Athlon II Neo K145 uses the Nile (2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Turion 64 MT-40 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K145 scores 565 against the Turion 64 MT-40's 600 — a 6% lead for the Turion 64 MT-40.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K145	Turion 64 MT-40
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.2 GHz+22%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	45 nm-50%	90 nm
Architecture	Nile (2010)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	565	600+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K145 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 MT-40 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.