Athlon 300U vs FX-7500

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-7500
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 19 Watt
2.02
Athlon 300U
2019
2 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
2.43
+20.3%

Athlon 300U outperforms FX-7500 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-7500 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19141760
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD KaveriAMD Athlon
Power efficiency10.0615.33
Architecture codenameKaveri (2014−2015)Raven Ridge 2 (2019)
Release date4 June 2014 (10 years ago)6 January 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-7500 and Athlon 300U 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus typeno dataPCIe 3.0
Multiplierno data24
L1 cacheno data128K (per core)
L2 cache4096 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size245 mm2209.78 mm2
Number of transistors2,410 million4940 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on FX-7500 and Athlon 300U 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFP3FP5
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-7500 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMAXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
FRTC+-
TrueAudio+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
Out-of-band client management+-
VirusProtect+-
HSA+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-7500 and Athlon 300U are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-7500 and Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1600DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidthno data38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R7 GraphicsAMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 1000 MHz)
iGPU core count6no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-7500 and Athlon 300U integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-7500 and Athlon 300U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-7500 and Athlon 300U.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes812

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX-7500 2.02
Athlon 300U 2.43
+20.3%

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.

FX-7500 3209
Athlon 300U 3867
+20.5%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

FX-7500 2060
Athlon 300U 3968
+92.6%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

FX-7500 5482
Athlon 300U 8724
+59.1%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

FX-7500 23.32
Athlon 300U 15.44
+51%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

FX-7500 153
Athlon 300U 308
+101%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

FX-7500 55
Athlon 300U 119
+116%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

FX-7500 1.1
Athlon 300U 1.9
+72.7%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

FX-7500 14
Athlon 300U 19
+33.1%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

FX-7500 69
Athlon 300U 89
+29.3%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

FX-7500 1479
Athlon 300U 1623
+9.8%

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

FX-7500 4116
Athlon 300U 6134
+49%

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

FX-7500 1769
Athlon 300U 2919
+65%

Geekbench 2

FX-7500 4730
Athlon 300U 6868
+45.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 2.43
Recency 4 June 2014 6 January 2019
Physical cores 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 15 Watt

FX-7500 has 100% more physical cores.

Athlon 300U, on the other hand, has a 20.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

The Athlon 300U is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-7500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-7500 and Athlon 300U, 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 FX-7500
FX-7500
AMD Athlon 300U
Athlon 300U

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 91 vote

Rate FX-7500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 459 votes

Rate Athlon 300U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-7500 or Athlon 300U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.