Athlon II X2 240 vs E-450

Athlon II X2 240 vs E-450 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X2 240

2 / 2

1,060

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

E-450

2 / 2

1,063

+0.3%

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 X2 240 vs E-450 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 X2 240 vs E-450: 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 X2 240

2009

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (AMD Stock), unlike E-450.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than E-450 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,060 vs 1,063).
❌Launch MSRP is still $60 MSRP, while E-450 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌261.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 18W.

E-450

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 18W instead of 65W, a 47W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 240.

Quick Answers

So, is E-450 better than Athlon II X2 240?

Yes. E-450 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.7% 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, E-450 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.7% 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, E-450 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?

E-450 is still the much better call for a fresh build. E-450 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $60 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II X2 240 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (17.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3.

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

E-450 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009) 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 II X2 240 vs E-450 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon II X2 240

The Athlon II X2 240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 July 2009 (16 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: 2 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,060 points. Launch price was $35.

E-450

The E-450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.65 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3 Single-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 1,063 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon II X2 240 and E-450 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Athlon II X2 240 versus 1.65 GHz on the E-450 — a 51.7% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 240. The Athlon II X2 240 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the E-450 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 240 scores 1,060 against the E-450's 1,063 — a 0.3% lead for the E-450. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon II X2 240	E-450
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+70%	1.65 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB	512K (per core)+25500%
Process	45 nm	40 nm-11%
Architecture	Regor (2009−2013)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,060	1,063
Geekbench 6 Single	373	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	700	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X2 240 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E-450 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon II X2 240	E-450
Socket	AM3	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 240) / not specified (E-450). Primary use case: Athlon II X2 240 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 240 rivals Pentium E5400.