Home > Uncategorized > AMD Athlon II P320 processor review

AMD Athlon II P320 processor review

August 29th, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

The Athlon II P320 has two cores and is clocked at 2.1 GHz and. It has a total of 1 MB of cache  ( 512KB for each of its two cores). The Athlon ii P320 can be categorized as an entry level dual core processor. Its performance is slightly inferior to the similarly clocked Intel dual core and Core 2 Duo processors and significantly inferior to the similarly clocked Intel’s core i3 processors.

However some of the architectural beauties of the Athlon II P320 ensured decent performance. It has DDR3 Integrated memory controller. The integrated memory controller makes processor to memory communication fast and partially makes up for the smaller cache memory. The communication with the chip with fast differential 16 bit HyperTransport bus ensures speedier data transfer to peripherals and display. The frequency of the HyperTransport bus is 1800 MHz. The HyperTransport bus works on the rising as well as the falling edge of the clock. Therefore, an 1800 MHz clock essentially means that there are 3600 Million Transfers taking place in one second. It is therefore, more appropriate to refer this bus as 3600 MT/s or 3.6 GT/s.   You must refer to the AMD website if you are looking for accurate information.

Both the Athlon ii P320 as well as the Intel’s Core 2 Duo T6500 are clocked at 2.1 GHz and both are 2 core processor. So which one is faster and by what degree ? Read in Athlon ii P320 Vs Core 2 Duo T6500.

If you wish to have somewhat higher performance processor, you may like to consider the dual core Turion processor – for example the Turion II P520.

Athlon II P320 Power consumption – The Athlon II P320 has a TDP rating of  25 Watts and is therefore great if you want your processor to keep cool and quiet. It also helps provide extended battery life.

Athlon II P320 Benchmarks and comparison – The AMD Athlon II P320 running at 2.1 GHz takes
84 seconds for the 2M superpi calculation. The dual core celeron T3100 ( running at 1.9 GHz), by comparison, takes 70 seconds ( lower time is better). In 3DMark 06 score for the  AMD Athlon II P320 is  1680 as compared to 1687  score for the intel’s Dual core Celeron T3100 processor.

In general, the performance of the Athlon II P320 processor is going to be somewhere in the range of the Intel’s dual core Celeron processors with frequencies in the range of 1.9GHz to 2.1 GHz.

Athlon II P320 Architecture

Manufactured with 45nm fabrication technology, the Athlon II P320  processor has integrated dual channel DDR3 memory controller. Integrated memory controller makes processor to memory communication faster.

The processor communicates with the peripherals with the HyperTransport 3.0 Link at 1800 MHz 16 bits. HyperTransport is a differential bus with massive bandwidth enabled due to its ability to operate at high frequency due to its differential nature.

Conclusion –AMD Athlon II P320 processor will give you an acceptable performance for your routing works. However, it could be better if you could find a similarly priced Turion II processor. For example you will find noticeable improvement with the Turion II P520 processor.   If you do need even more processing power, you may like to consider the hex core AMD phenom II processor or the Intel’s quad core i7 processors.

Few recent notebooks, for example, Compaq CQ62-225, Dell Inspiron 15R feature the AMD Athlon II P320 processor.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. Niks
    October 22nd, 2010 at 00:15 | #1

    Hi This is a really nice review. I liked the way the person has compared it with intel line of processors to give us an idea where this procesor stands

  2. nicholas turo
    December 16th, 2010 at 02:58 | #2

    Is the CQ62-209WM [AMD Athlon 11 dual core P320] much faster much more powerful than a regular single core intel celeron processor? Also is it much more powerfull and faster than a pintree Intel ATOM N450 netbook processor?

  3. P360 Owner
    January 26th, 2011 at 08:58 | #3

    It should be of superior performance to a single core celeron and much more powerfull than an ATOM – However it will have worse battery life.