Microsoft SQ1 vs Athlon 64 TF-20
Aggregate performance score
Microsoft SQ1 outperforms Athlon 64 TF-20 by a whopping 2219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 TF-20 and Microsoft SQ1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3305 | 1489 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Athlon 64 | Qualcomm Snapdragon |
| Power efficiency | 0.61 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Sherman (2009) | Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 495) (2019) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 2 October 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 TF-20 and Microsoft SQ1 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 0.1 MB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 TF-20 and Microsoft SQ1 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.
| Socket | S1g1 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | no data |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 TF-20 and Microsoft SQ1. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection | no data |
| VirusProtect | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Qualcomm Adreno 685 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.16 | 3.71 |
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 2 October 2019 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
Microsoft SQ1 has a 2218.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Microsoft SQ1 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 TF-20 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 TF-20 and Microsoft SQ1, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
