C-30 vs Athlon 64 FX-57

VS

Primary details

Comparing Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD C-Series
Architecture codenameSan Diego (2001−2005)Ontario (2011−2012)
Release dateJune 2005 (19 years ago)4 January 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz1.2 GHz
L1 cache128 KB64 KB
L2 cache1 MB512 KB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography90 nm40 nm
Die size115 mm275 mm2
Number of transistors114 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30 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 configuration11
Socket939FT1 BGA 413-Ball
Power consumption (TDP)104 Watt9 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data40 nm, 1.24-1.35V

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3 Single-channel

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6250

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



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.

Athlon 64 FX-57 517
+190%
C-30 178

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 90 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 104 Watt 9 Watt

C-30 has a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 1055.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Athlon 64 FX-57 is a desktop processor while C-30 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 FX-57 and C-30, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
Athlon 64 FX-57
AMD C-30
C-30

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


5 3 votes

Rate Athlon 64 FX-57 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.9 18 votes

Rate C-30 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 FX-57 or C-30, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.