Athlon 64 FX-57 vs Athlon II X4 640

VS

Primary details

Comparing Athlon II X4 640 and Athlon 64 FX-57 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2198not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.92no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.41no data
Architecture codenamePropus (2009−2011)San Diego (2001−2005)
Release date11 May 2010 (14 years ago)June 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X4 640 and Athlon 64 FX-57 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads41
Base clock speed3 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3 GHz2.8 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache512 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm90 nm
Die size169 mm2115 mm2
Number of transistors300 million114 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X4 640 and Athlon 64 FX-57 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
SocketAM3939
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt104 Watt

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 640 and Athlon 64 FX-57. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 640 and Athlon 64 FX-57.

PCIe version2.0no data

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 II X4 640 2245
+334%
Athlon 64 FX-57 517

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 4 1
Threads 4 1
Chip lithography 45 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 104 Watt

Athlon II X4 640 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 9.5% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Athlon II X4 640 and Athlon 64 FX-57. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 640 and Athlon 64 FX-57, 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 II X4 640
Athlon II X4 640
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
Athlon 64 FX-57

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.


3.7 1365 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 3 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Athlon II X4 640 or Athlon 64 FX-57, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.