Athlon II X4 635 vs Ryzen 5 1600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.73
+448%
Athlon II X4 635
2010
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.41

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Athlon II X4 635 by a whopping 448% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9482206
Place by popularity44not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.522.86
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5no data
Power efficiency11.251.40
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Propus (2009−2011)
Release date11 April 2017 (7 years ago)25 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219$70

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 5 1600 has 58% better value for money than Athlon II X4 635.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads124
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz2.9 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier32no data
L1 cache96K (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm45 nm
Die size192 mm2169 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million300 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4AM3
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes20no 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.


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.

Ryzen 5 1600 7.73
+448%
Athlon II X4 635 1.41

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 12278
+449%
Athlon II X4 635 2237

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Ryzen 5 1600 1084
+265%
Athlon II X4 635 297

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Ryzen 5 1600 4637
+432%
Athlon II X4 635 872

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.73 1.41
Recency 11 April 2017 25 January 2010
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 12 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 95 Watt

Ryzen 5 1600 has a 448.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 635 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and Athlon II X4 635, 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 Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600
AMD Athlon II X4 635
Athlon II X4 635

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.


4.1 5757 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 219 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 635 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1600 or Athlon II X4 635, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.