CPU
GPU
Athlon II X2 250e
Celeron 3965Y
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 X2 250e is positioned at rank 889 and the Celeron 3965Y is on rank 198, so the Celeron 3965Y 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 X2 250e
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 3965Y
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | ✨ Modern (Kaby Lake (2016−2019) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
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 X2 250e and Celeron 3965Y
Athlon II X2 250e
The Athlon II X2 250e 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 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,202 points. Launch price was $77.
Celeron 3965Y
The Celeron 3965Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3965Y share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Athlon II X2 250e versus 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 3965Y — a 79.1% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 250e (base: 3 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Athlon II X2 250e uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 3965Y uses Kaby Lake (2016−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 250e scores 1,202 against the Celeron 3965Y's 1,201 — a 0.1% lead for the Athlon II X2 250e. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 250 vs 372, a 39.2% lead for the Celeron 3965Y that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 470 vs 708 (40.4% advantage for the Celeron 3965Y). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 250e vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3965Y.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3 GHz+131% | 1.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3 GHz+100% | 1.5 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 512 kB |
| Process | 45 nm | 14 nm-69% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) |
| PassMark | 1,202 | 1,201 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 250 | 372+49% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 470 | 708+51% |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X2 250e uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 3965Y uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II X2 250e) vs 10 (Celeron 3965Y) — the Celeron 3965Y offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: 760G,780G,785G,790GX (Athlon II X2 250e) and SoC (Celeron 3965Y).
| Feature | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | FCBGA1515 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | LPDDR3-1866 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 10 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 250e) vs VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3965Y). The Celeron 3965Y includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 615), while the Athlon II X2 250e requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II X2 250e targets Energy Efficient Legacy Desktop, Celeron 3965Y targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 250e rivals Pentium E5700; Celeron 3965Y rivals Pentium Gold 4415Y.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron 3965Y |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics 615 |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Energy Efficient Legacy Desktop | Low Power |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon II X2 250e and Celeron 3965Y
