Athlon XP-M 2000+ vs Ryzen 7 8700G
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 277 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 44.76 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Athlon XP-M |
| Power efficiency | 29.16 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Phoenix (2023−2024) | Barton (2001−2004) |
| Release date | 8 January 2024 (less than a year ago) | 17 June 2003 (21 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | $134 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+ 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 4.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 1.53 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | FSB |
| Bus rate | no data | 266 MT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 11.5 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 178 mm2 | 101 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 25,000 million | 54 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+ 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM5 | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+. 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 Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 GB |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon 780M | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 8 January 2024 | 17 June 2003 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 1 |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
Ryzen 7 8700G has an age advantage of 20 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 3150% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon XP-M 2000+, on the other hand, has 160% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 7 8700G is a desktop processor while Athlon XP-M 2000+ is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 8700G and Athlon XP-M 2000+, 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.
