Ryzen 7 8700F vs Athlon XP-M 1800+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 53.28 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Athlon XP-M | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.55 |
| Architecture codename | K7 (2000−2004) | Phoenix (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 12 March 2003 (21 year ago) | 1 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | $270 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 5 GHz |
| Bus type | FSB | no data |
| Bus rate | 266 MT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 10.5 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 101 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 54 Million | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F 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 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 March 2003 | 1 April 2024 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon XP-M 1800+ has 160% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 8700F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 21 year, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 3150% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon XP-M 1800+ is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 8700F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon XP-M 1800+ and Ryzen 7 8700F, 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.
