A4-1200 vs Athlon 64 TF-20

A4-1200 vs Athlon 64 TF-20 Performance Spectrum

A4-1200

2 / 2

1,248

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon 64 TF-20

1 / 1

1,245

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A4-1200 vs Athlon 64 TF-20 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A4-1200 vs Athlon 64 TF-20: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A4-1200

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8180, while Athlon 64 TF-20 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Athlon 64 TF-20

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,245 vs 1,248).
❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while A4-1200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-1200 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-1200 better than Athlon 64 TF-20?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 TF-20 is ahead with a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A4-1200 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-1200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

A4-1200 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4-1200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. Athlon 64 TF-20 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (24.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on S1g1.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A4-1200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-1200 vs Athlon 64 TF-20 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A4-1200

The A4-1200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,248 points. Launch price was $50.

Athlon 64 TF-20

The Athlon 64 TF-20 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Sherman (2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,245 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The A4-1200 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon 64 TF-20 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the A4-1200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the A4-1200 versus 1.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 TF-20 — a 46.2% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 TF-20. The A4-1200 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon 64 TF-20 uses Sherman (2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A4-1200 scores 1,248 against the Athlon 64 TF-20's 1,245 — a 0.2% lead for the A4-1200.

Feature	A4-1200	Athlon 64 TF-20
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1 GHz	1.6 GHz+60%
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Sherman (2009)
PassMark	1,248	1,245
Geekbench 6 Single	70	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-1200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon 64 TF-20 uses S1g1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the A4-1200 versus DDR2-667 on the Athlon 64 TF-20 — the A4-1200 supports 59.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-1200 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-1200) vs 2 (Athlon 64 TF-20).

Feature	A4-1200	Athlon 64 TF-20
Socket	FT3	S1g1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066+60%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-1200) vs false (Athlon 64 TF-20). The A4-1200 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8180), while the Athlon 64 TF-20 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-1200 targets Tablet. Direct competitor: A4-1200 rivals Atom Z2760.