Athlon II X2 260 vs Celeron 2950M
Athlon II X2 260
Celeron 2950M
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 260 is positioned at rank 780 and the Celeron 2950M is on rank 545, so the Celeron 2950M 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 260
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 2950M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($12) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Haswell (2013−2015) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($12) | ✅ 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 260 and Celeron 2950M
Athlon II X2 260
The Athlon II X2 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 11 May 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Regor (2009−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,248 points. Launch price was $48.
Celeron 2950M
The Celeron 2950M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,238 points. Launch price was $75.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X2 260 and Celeron 2950M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Athlon II X2 260 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron 2950M — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 260 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Athlon II X2 260 uses the Regor (2009−2013) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 2950M uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X2 260 scores 1,248 against the Celeron 2950M's 1,238 — a 0.8% lead for the Athlon II X2 260. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X2 260 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 2950M.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 3.2 GHz+60% | 2 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz+60% | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 22 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Regor (2009−2013) | Haswell (2013−2015) |
| PassMark | 1,248 | 1,238 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 352 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 636 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X2 260 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2950M uses PGA946 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 1333 on the Athlon II X2 260 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2950M — the Athlon II X2 260 supports 199.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2950M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon II X2 260) vs 16 (Celeron 2950M) — the Celeron 2950M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AM2+,AM3 (Athlon II X2 260) and HM87,HM86 (Celeron 2950M).
| Feature | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | PGA946 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | 1333+44333% | DDR3L-1600 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 | 32 GB+209715100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (Athlon II X2 260) vs VT-x (Celeron 2950M). The Celeron 2950M includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Haswell)), while the Athlon II X2 260 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2950M targets Budget. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 260 rivals Pentium E6700; Celeron 2950M rivals Pentium 2020M.
| Feature | Athlon II X2 260 | Celeron 2950M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | HD Graphics (Haswell) |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | true | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
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 260 and Celeron 2950M
