Ryzen 5 2600 vs Athlon X4 940
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 903 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 22 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.83 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.08 |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600 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) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 34 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 3 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 74 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 19 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 4 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
Ryzen 5 2600 has an age advantage of 8 months, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 940 and Ryzen 5 2600, 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.
