i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 - The Callisto Protocol RTX 2070 Mobile Refresh - Game Performance Benchmarks


i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260

Multi-Thread Performance

22851 Pts
1873 Pts

Single-Thread Performance

3099 Pts
1074 Pts

The Callisto Protocol

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 in The Callisto Protocol using RTX 2070 Mobile Refresh - CPU Performance comparison at Ultra, High, Medium, and Low Quality Settings with 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K resolutions

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260

Ultra Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
26.8 FPS
1080p
10.5 FPS
1440p
19.1 FPS
1440p
7.5 FPS
2160p
9.5 FPS
2160p
3.7 FPS
w1440p
15.3 FPS
w1440p
6.0 FPS
High Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
51.0 FPS
1080p
22.5 FPS
1440p
38.0 FPS
1440p
16.7 FPS
2160p
20.6 FPS
2160p
8.9 FPS
w1440p
31.3 FPS
w1440p
13.7 FPS
Medium Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
75.3 FPS
1080p
34.4 FPS
1440p
56.9 FPS
1440p
25.8 FPS
2160p
31.6 FPS
2160p
14.1 FPS
w1440p
47.3 FPS
w1440p
21.3 FPS
Low Quality
Resolution Frames Per Second
1080p
123.8 FPS
1080p
58.3 FPS
1440p
94.7 FPS
1440p
44.2 FPS
2160p
53.7 FPS
2160p
24.4 FPS
w1440p
79.3 FPS
w1440p
36.7 FPS
i9-10900K
  • The i9-10900K has higher Level 2 Cache. Data/instructions which have to be processed can be loaded from the fast L2 and the CPU does not have to wait for the very slow DDR RAM
  • The i9-10900K has more cores. The benefit of having more cores is that the system can handle more threads. Each core can handle a separate stream of data. This architecture greatly increases the performance of a system that is running concurrent applications.
  • The i9-10900K has more threads. Larger programs are divided into threads (small sections) so that the processor can execute them simultaneously to get faster execution.
  • For some games, a cpu with a higher clock speed, or in a technical name IPC (Instructions per clock), has better results than other CPU's with higher core count and lower core speed.
  • The i9-10900K has a higher turbo clock boost. Turbo Boost is a CPU feature that will run CPU clock speed faster than its base clock, if certain conditions are present. It will enable older software that runs on fewer cores, to perform better on newer hardware. Since games are software too, it is also applicable to them.
  • The i9-10900K has a smaller process size. The faster a transistor can toggle on and off, the faster it can do work. And transistors that turn on and off with less energy are more efficient, reducing the operating power, or “dynamic power consumption,” required by a processor.
Athlon II X2 260
  • The Athlon II X2 260 is more power efficient and generates less heat.

Compare i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 specifications

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 Architecture

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260
CodenameComet LakeRegor
GenerationCore i9 (Comet Lake)Athlon II X2 (Regor)
MarketDesktopDesktop
Memory SupportDDR4DDR3
Part#unknownADX260OCK23GM
Production StatusActiveEnd-of-life
ReleasedMay 2020May 2010

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 Cache

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260
Cache L164K (per core)128K
Cache L2256K (per core)1MB

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 Cores

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260
# of Cores102
# of Threads202
Integrated GraphicsUHD 630N/A
SMP # CPUs11

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 Features

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260
MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX AVX2 EIST Intel 64 XD bit VT-x VT-d HTT AES-NI TSX TXT CLMUL FMA3 F16C BMI1 BMI2 Boost 2.0MMX 3DNow! SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A AMD64 NX bit AMD-V

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 Notes

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 Performance

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260
Base Clock100 MHz200 MHz
Frequency3.7 GHz3.2 GHz
Multiplier37.0x16.0x
Multiplier UnlockedYesNo
TDP125 W65 W
Turbo Clockup to 5.3 GHzN/A
Voltagevariable1.15 V

i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 Physical

i9-10900K Athlon II X2 260
Die Sizeunknown117 mm²
PackageFC-LGA1200µPGA
Process Size14 nm45 nm
SocketIntel Socket 1200AMD Socket AM3
Transistorsunknown410 million
tCaseMax72°Cunknown

Compare i9-10900K vs Athlon II X2 260 in more games


Discussion and Comments

Share Your Comments