Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Processors arrow AMD Athlon-II X2-255 CPU ADX255OCGQBOX
AMD Athlon-II X2-255 CPU ADX255OCGQBOX E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors
Written by Hank Tolman   
Monday, 29 March 2010
Table of Contents: Page Index
AMD Athlon-II X2-255 CPU ADX255OCGQBOX
Features and Specifications
Closer Look: Athlon-II X2-255
Testing and Results
EVEREST Benchmark Tests
Passmark PerformanceTest
PCMark Vantage Benchmark Tests
SiSoftware Sandra
Video Game Benchmarks
Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Passmark Performance Test

PassMark PerformanceTest is a PC hardware benchmark utility that allows a user to quickly assess the performance of their computer and compare it to a number of standard 'baseline' computer systems. The Passmark PerformanceTest CPU tests all benchmark the mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, and 3DNow! instructions of modern processors.

In our tests there were several areas of concentration for each benchmark, which are combined into one compound score. This score is referred to as the CPU Mark, and is a composite of the following tests: Integer Math, Floating Point Math, Find Prime Numbers, SSE/3DNow!, Compression, Encryption, Image Rotation, and String Sorting. For this review, we've also decided to run the memory benchmark, which results in a composite score based on the following tests: small block allocation, cached read, uncached read, write performance, and large block allocation.

AMD_Athlon-II_X2-255_Passmark.png

The Passmark performance tests show a much different result than the Everest tests. The stock Athlon-II X2-255 was outperformed by the Dual-Core E5300 running at just 2.6GHz. When overclocked to 3.8GHz, the X2-255 ADX255OCK23GQ was able to eke out a slight performance gain over the stock Intel Dual-Core. The performance increase over the 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo was very evident in both the stock and overclocked states of the Athlon-II X2-255.

In the memory marks, the AMD X2-255 did register very slight gains over the Dual Core E5300, but only by a little, even running DDR3 memory over the DDR2 on the Intel platform. I have realized through many other testing setups that the Passmark memory marks generally have very little difference based on memory clock speed, but I think we should have seen a bigger difference between the DDR2 and DDR3 memory.



 

Comments 

 
# Great read with one flawBrian 2010-03-30 06:41
I like the read. It had great set of info for my next build, but I see a small flaw in the test. You said in the description that the FSB was eliminated because then the data transfer will be a whole lot faster than with a FSB, but I would like to know since the E6300 FSB is 1066Mhz, and the E5300 FSB is 800Mhz, what would happen with the Intel processor with a FSB of 1333MHz? The tests are sound don't get me wrong, but I would like to see what will the outcome will be with this processor. I use both AMD and Intel at home, and I see a great difference between them. but I would like to know more when it comes with a higher FSB? Still a great read, a job well done.
Report Comment
 
 
# Contributing EditorHank 2010-03-30 07:40
I'm sorry, but I am extremely confused by your comment. I don't know how it would be possible to eliminate the FSB. Also, if I were to use an Intel processor with an FSB of 1333MHz it would certainly be faster than the Athlon-II X2-255, considering the least expensive of these would be a Core 2 Quad at about $160 or so. We don't need benchmarks to tell us that the Core 2 Quad will come out ahead. If I'm way off and you are talking about something else altogether, could you rephrase you question for me?
Hope this helps,

Hank
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Contributing EditorBrian 2010-03-30 08:09
Thanks for the reply, to rephrase the question, there are dual core processors that have a FSB of 1333Mhz, i.e Intel E8500. Since this is just a dual core processor, how will something like the E8500 or the E6750 go against the Athlon II X2 which has no FSB?
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: Contributing EditorHank 2010-03-30 09:41
Ok, I see what you mean. The processors with a 1333MHz FSB would likely all outperform the Athlon-II X2-255. The increase FSB speed would make a difference, but so would the 4MB of L2 cache. The processors used in this review were picked to test the upgradeability of the Athlon-II X2-255, and also to show its performance relative to its price. Even the E6750 will run you nearly twice what the Athlon-II X2-255, so you can expect that it will do better. But will it do twice as well as the X2-255? It's all about what you are willing to spend, as well. Paired with a 785G motherboard, like in the review, the processor/mb combo is only $150. You would be spending that on just the processor for a 1333MHz Core 2 Duo, and you wouldn't get the Radeon HD 4200. :)
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: Contributing EditorHank 2010-03-30 09:50
I don't there is an Intel competitor that can match the performance of the X2-255 for the same price. I think to get a processor that will beat the X2-255, you need to look at the Pentium E6500, and even that might be close. The Core 2 Duos, even the E7500 at just over $100 will outperform the X2-255, and certainly the i3-530 at $120. You'd have to compare those, however, to the Phenom-II X2-555 or maybe the Athlon-II X4-630 to get a better idea of AMD/Intel matchup.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: Contributing EditorBrian 2010-03-30 14:55
Well if you put it that way than that's actually more understandable, I was just wondering why the 1333Mhz dual core processor was not on the list for some reason. But thanks for the replies, it was still a very informative reading. :)
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: AMD Athlon-II X2-255 CPU ADX255OCGQBOXJohn D mathis 2011-02-04 19:24
Intersting read, informative, factual, and utilitarian. I am contemplating an upgrade on my Velocity Micro lemon, w/Intel mobo, E6600 CpU, andhaving replaced the Mobo, video card, snd card, re-installed XP Home, several times over the three years, I look longingly at the AMD line in an Asus Mobo. It appears that AMD-Asus kit would be the way to go, based on the near 20 years my Compaq (AMD cpu) has lasted w/o a hitch.Caveat other than the Creative Snd Card, always a problem configuring. Couple that with not having to replace snd, video and Net card and the value goes way up. Doing the owrk myself, a no brainer with today's modular designs, makes the AMD a GREATER value. Bit more inot the Mobo, and still save about 50% over Intel's inflated prices and w/o the arrogance of their deaf "help desk". You guys are great, saved me a tone of money, aguish and KEEP up the good work.
Report Comment
 

Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

Search Benchmark Reviews
QNAP Network Storage Servers

Follow Benchmark Reviews on FacebookReceive Tweets from Benchmark Reviews on Twitter