
Athlon II X4 645

Core m7-6Y75
Athlon II X4 645 vs Core m7-6Y75 Performance Spectrum
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 X4 645 vs Core m7-6Y75 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Athlon II X4 645 vs Core m7-6Y75: 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 X4 645
2010Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $267 less on MSRP ($126 MSRP vs $393 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 213.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.8 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($126 MSRP vs $393 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 512W, a 417W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Core m7-6Y75
2015Why buy it
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon II X4 645 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (2,363 vs 2,375).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 18.8 PassMark/$ ($393 MSRP vs $126 MSRP).
- ❌438.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 95W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X4 645.
Quick Answers
So, is Athlon II X4 645 better than Core m7-6Y75?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon II X4 645 vs Core m7-6Y75 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon II X4 645
The Athlon II X4 645 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Propus (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,375 points. Launch price was $80.

Core m7-6Y75
The Core m7-6Y75 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake-Y (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,363 points. Launch price was $393.
Processing Power
The Athlon II X4 645 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core m7-6Y75 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Athlon II X4 645 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Athlon II X4 645 versus 3.1 GHz on the Core m7-6Y75 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.1 GHz vs 1.2 GHz). The Athlon II X4 645 uses the Propus (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Core m7-6Y75 uses Skylake-Y (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 645 scores 2,375 against the Core m7-6Y75's 2,363 — a 0.5% lead for the Athlon II X4 645. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X4 645 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core m7-6Y75.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Core m7-6Y75 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4+100% | 2 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 3.1 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.1 GHz+158% | 1.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 4 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core)+100% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 14 nm-69% |
| Architecture | Propus (2009−2011) | Skylake-Y (2015) |
| PassMark | 2,375 | 2,363 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 1,374 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 399 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 1,374 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X4 645 uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core m7-6Y75 uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Core m7-6Y75 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3 | FCBGA1515 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: Yes (Athlon II X4 645) / not specified (Core m7-6Y75). Primary use case: Athlon II X4 645 targets Desktop.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Core m7-6Y75 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | Yes | — |
| Target Use | Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Athlon II X4 645 was priced at $126, while the Core m7-6Y75 came in at $393. On launch pricing ($126 vs $393), Athlon II X4 645 was $267 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X4 645 delivers 18.8 pts/$ vs 6.0 pts/$ for the Core m7-6Y75 — making the Athlon II X4 645 the 103.3% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 645 | Core m7-6Y75 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $126-68% | $393 |
| Performance per Dollar | 18.8+213% | 6.0 |
| Release Date | 2010 | 2015 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















