Athlon 64 X2 4400+ vs Athlon X4 750K
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2002 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 1.71 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1000 MHz |
| L1 cache | 192K | no data |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | FM2 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4400+.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon X4 750K has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon 64 X2 4400+, on the other hand, has 53.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 4400+. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 750K and Athlon 64 X2 4400+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
