Athlon II X2 250e vs Celeron N3160

Athlon II X2 250e vs Celeron N3160 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X2 250e

2 / 2

1,202

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N3160

4 / 4

1,195

0.0%

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 250e vs Celeron N3160 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 250e vs Celeron N3160: 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 250e

2010

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Celeron N3160.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $77 MSRP, while Celeron N3160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1025% higher power demand at 45W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N3160 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 45W, a 41W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 400, while Athlon II X2 250e needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,195 vs 1,202).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X2 250e.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon II X2 250e better than Celeron N3160?

Yes. Athlon II X2 250e is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon II X2 250e is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Athlon II X2 250e is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon II X2 250e is the better buy right now. Athlon II X2 250e comes in at an unclear MSRP at $77 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (15.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon II X2 250e vs Celeron N3160 Technical Specifications

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

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 N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon II X2 250e packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3160 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3160 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Athlon II X2 250e versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 29% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 250e (base: 3 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Athlon II X2 250e uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 250e scores 1,202 against the Celeron N3160's 1,195 — a 0.6% lead for the Athlon II X2 250e. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon II X2 250e	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3 GHz+34%	2.24 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+87%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	45 nm	14 nm-69%
Architecture	Regor (2009−2013)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,202	1,195
Geekbench 6 Single	250	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	470	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X2 250e uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Athlon II X2 250e versus 1600 on the Celeron N3160 — the Celeron N3160 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 250e supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II X2 250e) vs 4 (Celeron N3160) — the Celeron N3160 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: 760G,780G,785G,790GX (Athlon II X2 250e) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160).

Feature	Athlon II X2 250e	Celeron N3160
Socket	AM3	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Athlon II X2 250e) vs true (Celeron N3160). The Celeron N3160 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 400), while the Athlon II X2 250e requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon II X2 250e targets Energy Efficient Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 250e rivals Pentium E5700; Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.