Athlon II X4 651 vs PRO A10-9700

Athlon II X4 651 vs PRO A10-9700 Performance Spectrum

Athlon II X4 651

4 / 4

3,584

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

PRO A10-9700

4 / 4

3,600

+0.4%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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 651 vs PRO A10-9700 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 X4 651 vs PRO A10-9700: 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 651

2011

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than PRO A10-9700 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,584 vs 3,600).
❌Launch MSRP is still $92 MSRP, while PRO A10-9700 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌53.8% higher power demand at 100W vs 65W.

PRO A10-9700

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 100W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is PRO A10-9700 better than Athlon II X4 651?

Yes. PRO A10-9700 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, PRO A10-9700 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.1% 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, PRO A10-9700 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

PRO A10-9700 is still the much better call for a fresh build. PRO A10-9700 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $92 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon II X4 651 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (39.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on FM1.

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

PRO A10-9700 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon II X4 651 vs PRO A10-9700 Technical Specifications

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

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.

PRO A10-9700

The PRO A10-9700 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. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,600 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon II X4 651 and PRO A10-9700 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 PRO A10-9700 — a 23.5% clock advantage for the PRO A10-9700 (base: 3 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Athlon II X4 651 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the PRO A10-9700 uses Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 651 scores 3,584 against the PRO A10-9700's 3,600 — a 0.4% lead for the PRO A10-9700.

Feature	Athlon II X4 651	PRO A10-9700
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	—
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2048 kB+100%
Process	32 nm	28 nm-13%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
PassMark	3,584	3,600

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon II X4 651 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the PRO A10-9700 uses AM4 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.