Athlon X4 860K vs Ryzen 7 2700

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 2700
2018
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
9.88
+357%
Athlon X4 860K
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
2.16

Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms Athlon X4 860K by a whopping 357% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking7841860
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.70no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7no data
Power efficiency14.382.15
Architecture codenameZen+ (2018−2019)Kaveri (2014−2015)
Release date19 April 2018 (6 years ago)12 August 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads164
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz4 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier32no data
L1 cache96K (per core)256K
L2 cache512K (per core)4 MB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography12 nm28 nm
Die size192 mm2245 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors4,800 million2,411 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K 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
SocketAM4FM2+
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHAno data
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR3-2133
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes2016

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 7 2700 9.88
+357%
Athlon X4 860K 2.16

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 7 2700 15696
+357%
Athlon X4 860K 3431

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 7 2700 1119
+144%
Athlon X4 860K 459

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 7 2700 5525
+390%
Athlon X4 860K 1127

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.88 2.16
Recency 19 April 2018 12 August 2014
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 16 4
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 95 Watt

Ryzen 7 2700 has a 357.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 2700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X4 860K in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 2700 and Athlon X4 860K, 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 7 2700
Ryzen 7 2700
AMD Athlon X4 860K
Athlon X4 860K

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.


4.2 3149 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 2700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 263 votes

Rate Athlon X4 860K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 2700 or Athlon X4 860K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.