Core Duo T2050
VS
Athlon 64 FX-51

Core Duo T2050 vs Athlon 64 FX-51

Intel

Core Duo T2050

2 Cores2 Thrd2 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2005
VS
AMD

Athlon 64 FX-51

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.2 GHz2003

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 Duo T2050 is positioned at rank 86 and the Athlon 64 FX-51 is on rank 1133, so the Core Duo T2050 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 Duo T2050

#27
Core Ultra 7 265HX
MSRP: $450|Avg: N/A
93%
#74
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
251%
#75
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
247%
#76
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
227%
#77
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
226%
#78
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
224%
#80
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
216%
#81
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
207%
#82
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
207%
#83
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
201%
#86
Core Duo T2050
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#88
Core 2 Duo T7500
MSRP: $316|Avg: $5
99%
#98
N150
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $128
93%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 FX-51

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
371089%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
350643%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
254595%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
76699%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
60754%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
53148%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
30440%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
30043%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
27355%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
27352%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
27046%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
26317%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
25949%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
25844%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
25610%
#1133
Athlon 64 FX-51
MSRP: $733|Avg: $733
100%
#1134
Athlon 64 FX-55
MSRP: $827|Avg: $50
99%
#1135
Athlon 64 FX-53
MSRP: $799|Avg: $15
96%
#1136
Athlon XP 2000+
MSRP: $339|Avg: $40
88%
#1137
Athlon 64 FX-57
MSRP: $1031|Avg: $200
83%
#1138
Athlon XP 3000+
MSRP: $588|Avg: $20
82%
#1139
Athlon XP 2100+
MSRP: $420|Avg: $30
75%
#1140
Pentium III 1266S
MSRP: $369|Avg: $20
68%
#1141
Pentium 4 1.80
MSRP: $562|Avg: $40
48%
#1142
Pentium III 1133
MSRP: $990|Avg: $30
21%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Athlon 64 FX-51 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Core Duo T2050 in both compute-intensive tasks (5% faster) and gaming workloads.
InsightCore Duo T2050Athlon 64 FX-51
Gaming
Lower gaming performance
Superior gaming performance
Workstation
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Better multi-core power
Price
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($733)
Longevity
🛑 Legacy (Yonah (2005−2006) / 65 nm)
🛑 Legacy (SledgeHammer (2003−2005) / 130 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

InsightCore Duo T2050Athlon 64 FX-51
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($733)

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 Duo T2050 and Athlon 64 FX-51

Intel

Core Duo T2050

The Core Duo T2050 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 585 points. Launch price was $249.

AMD

Athlon 64 FX-51

The Athlon 64 FX-51 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 615 points. Launch price was $149.

Processing Power

The Core Duo T2050 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon 64 FX-51 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Core Duo T2050 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Core Duo T2050 versus 2.2 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-51 — a 31.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-51. The Core Duo T2050 uses the Yonah (2005−2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Athlon 64 FX-51 uses SledgeHammer (2003−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Core Duo T2050 scores 585 against the Athlon 64 FX-51's 615 — a 5% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-51. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

FeatureCore Duo T2050Athlon 64 FX-51
Cores / Threads
2 / 2+100%
1 / 1
Boost Clock
1.6 GHz
2.2 GHz+38%
Base Clock
1.6 GHz
L3 Cache
0 kB
0 kB
L2 Cache
2 MB+100%
1 MB
Process
65 nm-50%
130 nm
Architecture
Yonah (2005−2006)
SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
PassMark
585
615+5%
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Duo T2050 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Athlon 64 FX-51 uses 940 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

FeatureCore Duo T2050Athlon 64 FX-51
Socket
PGA478
940
PCIe Generation
PCIe 1.1
PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed
DDR-400
Max RAM Capacity
4 GB
RAM Channels
2
ECC Support
PCIe Lanes
0