Athlon II X4 651 vs Athlon X4 950
Athlon II X4 651
Athlon X4 950
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 X4 651 is positioned at rank 505 and the Athlon X4 950 is on rank 344, so the Athlon X4 950 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 X4 651
Performance Per Dollar Athlon X4 950
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon II X4 651 | Athlon X4 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($92) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) | ✨ Modern (Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) / 28 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon II X4 651 | Athlon X4 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+512%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($92) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
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 X4 651 and Athlon X4 950
Athlon II X4 651
The Athlon II X4 651 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 100 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,584 points. Launch price was $149.
Athlon X4 950
The Athlon X4 950 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 3,576 points. Launch price was $60.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon II X4 651 and Athlon X4 950 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Athlon II X4 651 versus 3.8 GHz on the Athlon X4 950 — a 23.5% clock advantage for the Athlon X4 950 (base: 3 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Athlon II X4 651 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon X4 950 uses Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 651 scores 3,584 against the Athlon X4 950's 3,576 — a 0.2% lead for the Athlon II X4 651. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 651 | Athlon X4 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 4 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 3 GHz | 3.8 GHz+27% |
| Base Clock | 3 GHz | 3.5 GHz+17% |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core)+100% | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | 32 nm | 28 nm-13% |
| Architecture | Llano (2011−2012) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| PassMark | 3,584 | 3,576 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 656 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 1,637 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon II X4 651 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon X4 950 uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1866 on the Athlon II X4 651 versus DDR4-2400 on the Athlon X4 950 — the Athlon X4 950 supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon X4 950 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Athlon II X4 651) vs 8 (Athlon X4 950) — the Athlon II X4 651 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD FM1 (Athlon II X4 651) and Socket AM4 (Athlon X4 950).
| Feature | Athlon II X4 651 | Athlon X4 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FM1 | AM4 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1866 | DDR4-2400+33% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | 64 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+100% | 8 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon II X4 651) / AMD-V (Athlon X4 950).
| Feature | Athlon II X4 651 | Athlon X4 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
Value Analysis
The Athlon II X4 651 launched at $92 MSRP, while the Athlon X4 950 debuted at $58. At current prices ($92 vs $15), the Athlon X4 950 is $77 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon II X4 651 delivers 39.0 pts/$ vs 238.4 pts/$ for the Athlon X4 950 — making the Athlon X4 950 the 143.8% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon II X4 651 | Athlon X4 950 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $92 | $58-37% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $92 | $15-84% |
| Performance per Dollar | 39.0 | 238.4+511% |
| Release Date | 2011 | 2017 |
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 X4 651 and Athlon X4 950
