Athlon Neo X2 L335 vs Athlon II X2 265
Athlon Neo X2 L335
Athlon II X2 265
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 Neo X2 L335 is positioned at rank 944 and the Athlon II X2 265 is on rank 884, so the Athlon II X2 265 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon Neo X2 L335
Performance Per Dollar Athlon II X2 265
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon Neo X2 L335 | Athlon II X2 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Congo (2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Regor (2009−2013) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon Neo X2 L335 | Athlon II X2 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+1%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 Neo X2 L335 and Athlon II X2 265
Athlon Neo X2 L335
The Athlon Neo X2 L335 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Congo (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: ASB1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,331 points. Launch price was $149.
Athlon II X2 265
The Athlon II X2 265 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 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 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: DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,324 points. Launch price was $83.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon Neo X2 L335 and Athlon II X2 265 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Athlon Neo X2 L335 versus 3.3 GHz on the Athlon II X2 265 — a 69.4% clock advantage for the Athlon II X2 265. The Athlon Neo X2 L335 uses the Congo (2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Athlon II X2 265 uses Regor (2009−2013) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon Neo X2 L335 scores 1,331 against the Athlon II X2 265's 1,324 — a 0.5% lead for the Athlon Neo X2 L335.
| Feature | Athlon Neo X2 L335 | Athlon II X2 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz | 3.3 GHz+106% |
| Base Clock | — | 3.3 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 1 MB+100% |
| Process | 65 nm | 45 nm-31% |
| Architecture | Congo (2009) | Regor (2009−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,331 | 1,324 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 275 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 520 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon Neo X2 L335 uses the ASB1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon II X2 265 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon Neo X2 L335 versus DDR3-1333 on the Athlon II X2 265 — the Athlon II X2 265 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon II X2 265 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB1 (Athlon Neo X2 L335) and 760G,780G,785G,790GX,870,880G,890GX,890FX (Athlon II X2 265).
| Feature | Athlon Neo X2 L335 | Athlon II X2 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | ASB1 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-800 | DDR3-1333+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon Neo X2 L335) / AMD-V (Athlon II X2 265). Primary use case: Athlon II X2 265 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Athlon II X2 265 rivals Pentium E6700.
| Feature | Athlon Neo X2 L335 | Athlon II X2 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Legacy Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Athlon Neo X2 L335 launched at $80 MSRP, while the Athlon II X2 265 debuted at $83. At current prices ($15 vs $15), the Athlon II X2 265 is $0 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon Neo X2 L335 delivers 88.7 pts/$ vs 88.3 pts/$ for the Athlon II X2 265 — making the Athlon Neo X2 L335 the 0.5% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon Neo X2 L335 | Athlon II X2 265 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $80-4% | $83 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 88.7 | 88.3 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon Neo X2 L335 and Athlon II X2 265
