Athlon II X3 420e vs Athlon II X3 460
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X3 460 outperforms Athlon II X3 420e by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X3 460 and Athlon II X3 420e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2305 | 2489 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.49 | 0.09 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.26 | 2.06 |
| Architecture codename | Rana (2009−2011) | Rana (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 3 May 2011 (13 years ago) | 21 September 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $50 | $116 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon II X3 460 has 6000% better value for money than Athlon II X3 420e.
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X3 460 and Athlon II X3 420e 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 | 3 (Tri-Core) | 3 (Tri-Core) |
| Threads | 3 | 3 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 300 million | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X3 460 and Athlon II X3 420e 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 45 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X3 460 and Athlon II X3 420e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X3 460 and Athlon II X3 420e.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 0.98 |
| Recency | 3 May 2011 | 21 September 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 45 Watt |
Athlon II X3 460 has a 28.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 7 months.
Athlon II X3 420e, on the other hand, has 111.1% lower power consumption.
The Athlon II X3 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X3 420e in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X3 460 and Athlon II X3 420e, 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.
