Ryzen Threadripper 3970X vs Athlon 64 X2 FX-60
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X outperforms Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 by a whopping 6625% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3083 | 109 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 14.31 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 0.21 | 5.42 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Toledo (2006) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | no data | 25 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1000 MHz | 8 × 16 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 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 configuration | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) FX-60 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 102.403 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 35.64 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 32 |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 280 Watt |
Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 has 154.5% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, on the other hand, has a 6624.5% higher aggregate performance score, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
