Athlon II Neo K345 vs Turion 64 ML-28

Athlon II Neo K345 vs Turion 64 ML-28 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II Neo K345

2 / 2

1,191

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Turion 64 ML-28

1 / 1

1,201

+0.8%

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 K345 vs Turion 64 ML-28 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 K345 vs Turion 64 ML-28: 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 K345

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,191 vs 1,201).
❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while Turion 64 ML-28 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Turion 64 ML-28

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Turion 64 ML-28 better than Athlon II Neo K345?

Yes. Turion 64 ML-28 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.8% 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 ML-28 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.5% 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, Turion 64 ML-28 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Turion 64 ML-28 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Turion 64 ML-28 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II Neo K345 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (23.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 K345 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 K345 vs Turion 64 ML-28 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II Neo K345

The Athlon II Neo K345 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: 1.4 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: 1,191 points. Launch price was $149.

Turion 64 ML-28

The Turion 64 ML-28 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: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II Neo K345 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Turion 64 ML-28 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Athlon II Neo K345 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.4 GHz on the Athlon II Neo K345 versus 1.6 GHz on the Turion 64 ML-28 — a 13.3% clock advantage for the Turion 64 ML-28. The Athlon II Neo K345 uses the Champlain (2010−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses Lancaster (2005−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II Neo K345 scores 1,191 against the Turion 64 ML-28's 1,201 — a 0.8% lead for the Turion 64 ML-28.

Feature	Athlon II Neo K345	Turion 64 ML-28
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.4 GHz	1.6 GHz+14%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	45 nm-50%	90 nm
Architecture	Champlain (2010−2011)	Lancaster (2005−2006)
PassMark	1,191	1,201

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II Neo K345 uses the S1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Turion 64 ML-28 uses 754 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.