A6-5200 vs Athlon 64 FX-74

A6-5200 vs Athlon 64 FX-74 Performance Spectrum

A6-5200

4 / 4

1,672

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon 64 FX-74

2 / 2

1,658

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

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.

A6-5200 vs Athlon 64 FX-74 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.

A6-5200 vs Athlon 64 FX-74: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-5200

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 25W instead of 125W, a 100W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8400, while Athlon 64 FX-74 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (215 vs 400).

Athlon 64 FX-74

2006

Why buy it

✅+86% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,658 vs 1,672).
❌Launch MSRP is still $499 MSRP, while A6-5200 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌400% higher power demand at 125W vs 25W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-5200 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-5200 better than Athlon 64 FX-74?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Athlon 64 FX-74 is ahead with a 2.7% average FPS lead across 6 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, A6-5200 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-5200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-5200 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-5200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $499 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark. Athlon 64 FX-74 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on F.

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

A6-5200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-5200 vs Athlon 64 FX-74 Technical Specifications

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

A6-5200

The A6-5200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,672 points. Launch price was $70.

Athlon 64 FX-74

The Athlon 64 FX-74 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Novembro 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: F. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 1,658 points. Launch price was $500.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-5200 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Athlon 64 FX-74 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-5200 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the A6-5200 versus 3 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-74 — a 40% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 FX-74. The A6-5200 uses the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Athlon 64 FX-74 uses Windsor (2006−2007) (90 nm). In PassMark, the A6-5200 scores 1,672 against the Athlon 64 FX-74's 1,658 — a 0.8% lead for the A6-5200. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 215 vs 400, a 60.2% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-74 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-5200	Athlon 64 FX-74
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	3 GHz+50%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2048 kB+100%	1 MB
Process	28 nm-69%	90 nm
Architecture	Kabini (2013−2014)	Windsor (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,672	1,658
Geekbench 6 Single	215	400+86%
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	750

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-5200 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon 64 FX-74 uses F (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A6-5200 versus DDR2 on the Athlon 64 FX-74 — the A6-5200 supports 79900% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 FX-74 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A6-5200) vs 2 (Athlon 64 FX-74). PCIe lanes: 8 (A6-5200) vs 16 (Athlon 64 FX-74) — the Athlon 64 FX-74 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A6-5200	Athlon 64 FX-74
Socket	FT3	F
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+79900%	DDR2
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Athlon 64 FX-74 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AMD-V virtualization. The A6-5200 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8400), while the Athlon 64 FX-74 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-5200 targets Entry Laptop, Athlon 64 FX-74 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A6-5200 rivals Pentium N3510; Athlon 64 FX-74 rivals Pentium Extreme Edition 965.