Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

CPU Core Details

CPU Codename Regor ClawHammer
MoBo Socket Socket AM2+ / AM3 Socket 939
Notebook CPU no no
Release Date 10 May 2010 19 Oct 2004
CPU Link GD Link GD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

{
CPU Cores 2 1
CPU Threads - 1
Clock Speed 2.9 GHz 2.6 GHz
Turbo Frequency - -
System Bus - 1000 MHz
Max TDP 45 W 104 W
Lithography 45 nm 130 nm
Bit Width - 64 Bit
Max Temperature - 63°C
Virtualization Technology no no

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size 256 KB 128 KB
L2 Cache Size 2048 KB 1024 KB
L3 Cache Size - -
Memory Types
ECC Memory Support no no

CPU Graphics

Integrated Graphics no no
Base GPU Frequency - -
Max GPU Frequency - -
DirectX - -
Displays Supported - -

CPU Mini Review

Mini Review The Athlon II series is based on the AMD K10 architecture and derived from the Phenom II series. However, unlike its Phenom siblings, it does not contain any L3 Cache. There are two Athlon II dies: the dual-core Regor die with 1 MB L2 Cache per core and the four-core Propus with 512 KB per core. Regor is a native dual-core design with lower TDP and additional L2 to offset the removal of L3 cache. The three core Rana is derived from the Propus quad-core design, with one core disabled. Athlon 64 FX-55 is an entry-level Processor based on the 130nm K8 micro-architecture. It offers 1 Physical Core (1 Logical), clocked at 2.6GHz and 1MB of L2 Cache. No relevant technologies are activated in a way the processor doesn't even support Virtualization. The processor DOES NOT integrate any graphics. and has a rated board TDP of 104W. Its performance is below the average and so most demanding games will not run optimally.

Gaming Performance Comparison

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD Athlon II X2 245e is noticeably better than the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

Both the Athlon II X2 245e and the Athlon 64 FX-55 were released at the same time, so are likely to be quite similar.

The 2 has 1 more core than the Athlon 64 FX-55. However, while the 2 will probably perform better than the Athlon 64 FX-55, both CPUs are likely to struggle with the latest games, and will almost certainly bottleneck high-end graphics cards. This should not affect games that are a few years old, and even the latest games should at least be playable on very low settings, as only recently have game developers begun to harness the power of multiple cores.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Athlon II X2 and Athlon 64 FX-55 are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the Athlon II X2 has a 0.3 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. As such, we need to look elsewhere for more reliable comparisons.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The <span class='gpu1Mention'>Athlon II X2</span> has a 1024 KB bigger L2 cache than the <span class='gpu2Mention'>Athlon 64 FX-55</span>, but neither of the CPUs have L3 caches, so the <span class='gpu1Mention'>Athlon II X2</span> wins out in this area with its larger L2 cache.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.