Core 2 Duo T5670
VS
Phenom II X6 1065T

Core 2 Duo T5670 vs Phenom II X6 1065T

Intel

Core 2 Duo T5670

2 Cores2 Thrd2 WWMax: 1.8 GHz2008
VS
AMD

Phenom II X6 1065T

6 Cores6 Thrd125 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2010

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 Core 2 Duo T5670 is positioned at rank 2 and the Phenom II X6 1065T is on rank 1030, so the Core 2 Duo T5670 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Duo T5670

#2
Core 2 Duo T5670
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#4
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
43%
#5
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
42%
#6
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
39%
#7
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
38%
#8
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
38%
#10
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
37%
#11
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
35%
#12
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
35%
#13
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
34%
#17
Core i3-350M
MSRP: $130|Avg: $10
32%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Phenom II X6 1065T

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
38916%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
36772%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
26699%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
8043%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
6371%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
5574%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
3192%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
3151%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
2869%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
2868%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
2836%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
2760%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
2721%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
2710%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
2686%
#396
Ryzen Embedded R2314
MSRP: $300|Avg: $762
96%
#1030
Phenom II X6 1065T
MSRP: $426|Avg: $170
100%
#1031
Celeron 440
MSRP: $59|Avg: $10
100%
#1032
A8-3820
MSRP: $280|Avg: $200
97%
#1033
Core i7-860S
MSRP: $299|Avg: $96
97%
#1035
Core 2 Duo E4700
MSRP: $133|Avg: $10
95%
#1036
PRO A10-8770E
MSRP: $395|Avg: $210
95%
#1037
Athlon 64 X2 5800+
MSRP: $230|Avg: $20
95%
#1038
Phenom II X2 B53
MSRP: $150|Avg: $15
95%
#1039
Core 2 Quad Q9300
MSRP: $266|Avg: $27
94%
#1040
Athlon II X4 638
MSRP: $300|Avg: $280
94%
#1041
Core 2 Duo E7200
MSRP: $133|Avg: $133
94%
#1043
Phenom X3 8750
MSRP: $195|Avg: $20
93%
#1044
Pentium G4400TE
MSRP: $300|Avg: $250
91%
#1045
Celeron 2.60
MSRP: $53|Avg: $10
91%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Phenom II X6 1065T leads in gaming performance. However, the Core 2 Duo T5670 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 0.8% greater multi-core processing power.
InsightCore 2 Duo T5670Phenom II X6 1065T
Gaming
Lower gaming performance
Superior gaming performance
Workstation
Better multi-core power
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Price
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($170)
Longevity
🛑 Legacy (Merom-2M (2008) / 65 nm)
🛑 Legacy (Thuban (2010) / 45 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

InsightCore 2 Duo T5670Phenom II X6 1065T
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($170)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

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 Core 2 Duo T5670 and Phenom II X6 1065T

Intel

Core 2 Duo T5670

The Core 2 Duo T5670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Merom-2M (2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 3,440 points. Launch price was $249.

AMD

Phenom II X6 1065T

The Phenom II X6 1065T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Thuban (2010) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,412 points. Launch price was $149.

Processing Power

The Core 2 Duo T5670 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Phenom II X6 1065T offers 6 cores / 6 threads — the Phenom II X6 1065T has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Core 2 Duo T5670 versus 3.4 GHz on the Phenom II X6 1065T — a 61.5% clock advantage for the Phenom II X6 1065T (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Core 2 Duo T5670 uses the Merom-2M (2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Phenom II X6 1065T uses Thuban (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo T5670 scores 3,440 against the Phenom II X6 1065T's 3,412 — a 0.8% lead for the Core 2 Duo T5670. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo T5670 vs 6 MB (total) on the Phenom II X6 1065T.

FeatureCore 2 Duo T5670Phenom II X6 1065T
Cores / Threads
2 / 2
6 / 6+200%
Boost Clock
1.8 GHz
3.4 GHz+89%
Base Clock
1.8 GHz
2.9 GHz+61%
L3 Cache
2 MB L2 Cache
6 MB (total)+200%
L2 Cache
2 MB+300%
512 kB (per core)
Process
65 nm
45 nm-31%
Architecture
Merom-2M (2008)
Thuban (2010)
PassMark
3,440
3,412