Ryzen 5 2600 vs Athlon II M300
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 903 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 22 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.78 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Athlon II | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.08 |
| Architecture codename | Caspian (2009) | Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018) |
| Release date | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 13 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 34 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 576 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 3 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4800 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | Socket S1 (S1g3) | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 September 2009 | 13 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 6 |
| Threads | 2 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon II M300 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 5 2600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon II M300 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 5 2600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II M300 and Ryzen 5 2600, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
