7 160UL vs Athlon XP-M 1600+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Athlon XP-M | no data |
| Architecture codename | K7 (2000−2004) | Raptor Lake-PS (2024) |
| Release date | 12 March 2003 (21 year ago) | 8 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL 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) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 5.2 GHz |
| Bus type | FSB | no data |
| Bus rate | 200 MT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 14 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 85 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 37 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL 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 |
| Socket | Socket 563 | 1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 March 2003 | 8 April 2024 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 10 |
| Threads | 1 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 15 Watt |
7 160UL has an age advantage of 21 year, 900% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, a 1200% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon XP-M 1600+ is a notebook processor while Core 7 160UL is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon XP-M 1600+ and Core 7 160UL, 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.
