OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Athlon 240GE review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£70PassMark multi-core score:4566N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

AMD Athlon 240GE Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 56% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 60%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 68%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 83% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
6 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 83%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Athlon 240GE

Based on 5 · 2

Reviewers like the included cooler and decent integrated graphics, but find gaming and single-core performance lacking.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Athlon 240GE

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.5
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,566
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,566 in PassMark, which is lower than 75.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,667 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,667 MHz, which is lower than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2667 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2667 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.2% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon Vega 3
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 3
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 3 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 67% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
3
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 92.9% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,000 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,000 MHz which is higher than that of 93.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57.2% of processors and equal to 9.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Athlon 240GE vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 22.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 83% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    6 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 6.7
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 2.86x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,000 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 3.57x cheaper
    AMD Athlon 240GE is cheaper than the average processor (£70 vs £250).
    £70 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 22.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 83% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    6 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 6.7
  • 3.57x cheaper
    AMD Athlon 240GE is cheaper than the average processor (£70 vs £250).
    £70 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    turbo boost
    3 vs 2
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2.86x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,000 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 60.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,566 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,566 vs 11,469
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 23.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1965 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,965 vs 2,558
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 21% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (387 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    387 vs 490
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    December 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 60.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,566 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,566 vs 11,469
  • 23.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1965 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,965 vs 2,558
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 21% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (387 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    387 vs 490
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 12.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,561 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,561 vs 5,209
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • 18.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (209.8 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    209.8 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,667 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2667 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,667 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (3 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    3 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
F7GOS
≈ estimated
25/02/2019
Hands-on review · overclocking and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Athlon 240GE is a strong everyday chip and a cheap entry to AM4, but gaming on demanding titles is clearly limited.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
25/02/2019
Lab test · Overclocking and graphics
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 240GE suits web browsing and low-end gaming; once overclocked, it matches the other Athlons, but single-thread speed is weak.
9.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
29/01/2019
Benchmark test · Entry-level chip
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 240GE is an entry-level chip that beats the Pentium G4560 in multi-core tests and has strong built-in graphics, but single-core speed lags.
9.0
agendatecnologicaweb.com
≈ estimated
27/04/2019
Hands-on test · Gaming and video editing
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 240GE is a cool-running chip for office work and 4K video editing, but only light games like League of Legends run well.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
01/03/2019
Hands-on test · Overclocking check
Verdict
The AMD Athlon 240GE is a slightly faster version of the 200GE for browsing and light gaming, but its multiplier stayed locked on the test board.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Athlon 240GE

  • Highly affordable price point for budget PC builds
  • Extremely low power consumption with a 35W TDP
  • Capable of handling eSports titles (CS:GO, Fortnite) on integrated Vega 3 graphics
  • Includes a functional bundled thermal solution (stock cooler)
  • Unofficial overclocking support on certain motherboards can boost performance to nearly 4.0 GHz
  • Uses the versatile AM4 socket, allowing for future CPU upgrades without a motherboard swap

What customers don't like about AMD Athlon 240GE

  • Poor value compared to the Athlon 200GE, which offers nearly identical performance for less money
  • Weak single-threaded performance compared to contemporary Intel Pentium processors
  • Only 2 physical cores can struggle with modern multi-threaded applications and heavy multitasking
  • Integrated Vega 3 graphics are insufficient for modern, graphically intensive AAA games
  • Officially has a locked multiplier, making overclocking dependent on specific motherboard BIOS 'exploits'
  • Lacks a significant performance boost over lower-tier models in the same lineup

Verdict

The AMD Athlon 240GE is an entry-level processor released in early 2019, featuring a dual-core, four-thread design based on the 14nm Zen architecture. It operates at a fixed base clock of 3.5 GHz with no official boost frequency and has a low 35W TDP, making it highly power-efficient for basic home or office PCs. The chip includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics with three compute units running at 1000 MHz, providing capable performance for 720p gaming and smooth 4K video playback. Key advantages include its extreme affordability, support for the versatile AM4 socket, and unofficial overclocking capabilities on many motherboards that can push speeds toward 3.9 GHz. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of official overclocking support, a hardware-locked memory speed limit of 2667 MHz, and limited PCIe 3.0 lanes (x8), which can bottleneck high-end dedicated GPUs.

Compare AMD Athlon 240GE with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Athlon 240GE and other processors

No results found