
Athlon X2 QL-66 vs PRO A4-8350B

Athlon X2 QL-66

PRO A4-8350B
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 X2 QL-66 is positioned at rank 1048 and the PRO A4-8350B is on rank 553, so the PRO A4-8350B offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon X2 QL-66
Performance Per Dollar PRO A4-8350B
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon X2 QL-66 | PRO A4-8350B |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($5) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Lion (2008−2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Kaveri (2014−2015) / 28 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon X2 QL-66 | PRO A4-8350B |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($5) | ✅ 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 X2 QL-66 and PRO A4-8350B

Athlon X2 QL-66
The Athlon X2 QL-66 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lion (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,695 points. Launch price was $149.

PRO A4-8350B
The PRO A4-8350B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,690 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon X2 QL-66 and PRO A4-8350B share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Athlon X2 QL-66 versus 3.9 GHz on the PRO A4-8350B — a 55.7% clock advantage for the PRO A4-8350B. The Athlon X2 QL-66 uses the Lion (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the PRO A4-8350B uses Kaveri (2014−2015) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon X2 QL-66 scores 1,695 against the PRO A4-8350B's 1,690 — a 0.3% lead for the Athlon X2 QL-66.
| Feature | Athlon X2 QL-66 | PRO A4-8350B |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 2.2 GHz | 3.9 GHz+77% |
| Base Clock | — | 3.5 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1024 kB |
| Process | 65 nm | 28 nm-57% |
| Architecture | Lion (2008−2009) | Kaveri (2014−2015) |
| PassMark | 1,695 | 1,690 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon X2 QL-66 uses the S1g2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the PRO A4-8350B uses FM2+ (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Athlon X2 QL-66 | PRO A4-8350B |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | S1g2 | FM2+ |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | ❌ | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















