AMD Athlon II X2 240e

The AMD Athlon II X2 240e is a 45 nm desktop processor from the K10 architecture, specifically the Regor codename, released in October 2009. It is a dual-core, dual-thread part with a base clock of 2.80 GHz, no boost clock, and a 45 W TDP. With 128 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache, this end-of-life chip targets entry-level desktop workloads, but its benchmark data reveals a very narrow performance envelope that places it in the lowest percentile of all CPUs.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark results for the Athlon II X2 240e are modest, reflecting its dual-core design and older architecture. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the processor scores 855 points, while its single-core score is 120 points. The Cinebench R20 multi-core result is 359 points, and the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test yields 86 points. The average benchmark score across all tests is 355 points, which places the chip at the 3rd percentile of all CPUs — meaning it outperforms only 3% of the processors in the database.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the performance is statistically indistinguishable. The Intel Core i3-3229Y and the AMD Athlon II X2 215 both have an average score of 355, with a deltaPct of -0.1 relative to the 240e — essentially a tie. The Intel Pentium E6700 also scores 355, but with a deltaPct of +0.1, meaning the 240e is marginally ahead. The AMD Phenom II X2 545 scores 357, a deltaPct of -0.5, indicating the 240e trails by half a percent. These deltas are noise-level differences; no rival in this group offers a meaningful performance advantage. The data shows a cluster of CPUs all performing within a 1% band, making the 240e neither a leader nor a laggard among its immediate peers, but the absolute scores are very low by modern standards.

Platform and Compatibility

The Athlon II X2 240e uses the AMD Socket AM3, which is a key compatibility detail for potential upgrades or builds. It supports DDR3 memory through a dual-channel memory bus, though the memory bandwidth is not specified in the data. The platform features PCIe Gen 2, which is an older generation of the interface. The processor does not have integrated graphics; instead, graphics functionality is "On certain motherboards" as a chipset feature, meaning a discrete GPU is typically required. The chip has a locked multiplier, so overclocking via multiplier adjustment is not possible. The part number is AD240EHDK23GQ, and the production status is end-of-life, so new availability is limited. The upgrade path on AM3 is constrained by the platform's age; the socket supports other AM3 processors, but the data does not list specific compatible models beyond the immediate rivals. ECC memory is not supported, which limits its appeal for error-correcting workloads. The lack of a boost clock is notable — the processor runs at a fixed 2.80 GHz under all conditions, which simplifies thermal behavior but also caps peak performance.

Power and Thermals

The 45 W TDP class is the defining thermal characteristic of this processor. This is a low-power design, suggesting that a capable air cooler — even a small, quiet one — would suffice for cooling. The 45 W figure implies low heat output, which is advantageous for compact systems or environments where noise and power consumption are concerns. The 45 nm process node and 410 million transistors on a 117 mm² die size contribute to this efficiency profile. The data does not provide a boost clock, so the power draw is constant under load, which simplifies thermal management. The low TDP also means that the processor does not require a robust power delivery system on the motherboard, making it compatible with basic AM3 boards. The thermal implications are clear: this is a chip that runs cool and quiet, but the trade-off is the low performance ceiling seen in the benchmark scores. The lack of an L3 cache — the data shows null for L3 and total L3 — further reduces power consumption but also limits performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Athlon II X2 240e?

A: The average benchmark score is 355 points, which places it at the 3rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How does the Athlon II X2 240e's multi-core performance compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-3229Y?

A: The two processors have identical average scores of 355 points, with a deltaPct of -0.1, indicating a statistically negligible difference.

Q: What memory type does this processor support?

A: It supports DDR3 memory via a dual-channel memory bus, but ECC memory is not supported.

Q: Does the Athlon II X2 240e have integrated graphics?

A: No, it does not have integrated graphics. Graphics are available only on certain motherboards as a chipset feature.

Q: What is the TDP of this processor, and what does it imply for cooling?

A: The TDP is 45 W, which implies a low-power design that can be handled by a capable air cooler without excessive heat or noise.

Q: Can the multiplier be unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, the multiplier is locked, so overclocking via multiplier adjustment is not possible.

How It Compares

The Intel Core i3-3229Y is the closest rival, with an identical average score of 355 and a deltaPct of -0.1. This is effectively a tie — the 240e is neither faster nor slower by any measurable margin. The data suggests that in multi-threaded workloads, these two chips are interchangeable.

The AMD Athlon II X2 215 also matches the 240e with a 355 average score and a -0.1 deltaPct. This is expected, as both are Athlon II X2 parts from the same era. The benchmark results indicate that the 240e's lower TDP does not come at a performance cost relative to its sibling.

The Intel Pentium E6700 scores 355 with a deltaPct of +0.1, meaning the 240e is 0.1% ahead. This is a negligible advantage, but it does show that the 240e can edge out a comparable Intel dual-core in the average benchmark score.

The AMD Phenom II X2 545 scores 357, a deltaPct of -0.5. The 240e trails by half a percent, which is still within noise. The Phenom II's higher average score is marginal, and the data does not suggest any meaningful performance gap between the two.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The Cinebench R23 scores reveal a stark difference between single-thread and multi-thread performance. The single-core score is 120 points, while the multi-core score is 855 points. The multi-core score is 7.1 times higher than the single-core score, which is far above the 2x scaling expected from a dual-core chip. This anomaly suggests that the single-core test is heavily bottlenecked by the processor's low clock speed and lack of modern architectural features, while the multi-core test benefits from the second core. In real workloads, this means the 240e will struggle with single-threaded tasks like older games or basic office applications that rely on one core. Multi-threaded workloads, such as video encoding or rendering, will show relatively better scaling, but the absolute scores remain low. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 359 and R15 score of 86 reinforce this pattern — the chip is consistently weak across all benchmarks. The lack of a boost clock means single-thread performance is fixed, and the data does not show any dynamic frequency adjustments to help with bursty tasks.

Who Should Consider It

Given the 3rd percentile ranking and the low absolute scores, this processor is only suitable for the most basic desktop tasks. For office productivity — word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing — the 240e can handle these with the caveat that modern websites and software may cause slowdowns due to the low single-core score of 120 in Cinebench R23. Gaming is not a viable use case; the data shows no GPU-related benchmarks, but the CPU's low multi-core score of 855 in Cinebench R23 would bottleneck even entry-level graphics cards. Content creation, such as video editing or 3D rendering, is technically possible but painfully slow — the R20 multi-core score of 359 is far below any modern requirement. The 45 W TDP makes it an option for fanless or passively cooled systems where silence is paramount, but the performance trade-off is severe. The end-of-life status and locked multiplier further limit its appeal to hobbyists or those with legacy AM3 motherboards. In short, the data indicates this is a processor for basic, low-power, and low-cost systems — not for any performance-sensitive workload.