Athlon II X2 250e vs Celeron N3160
Athlon II X2 250e
Celeron N3160
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 N3160 is on rank 697, so the Celeron N3160 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 N3160
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron N3160 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower 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) | 🛑 Legacy (Braswell (2015−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron N3160 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 N3160
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 199.3% 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 — 66.7% 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+53233% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+209715100% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| 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.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 250e | Celeron N3160 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics 400 |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | true |
| Target Use | Energy Efficient Legacy Desktop | — |
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 N3160
