A6-7480 vs Athlon 64 FX-72

A6-7480 vs Athlon 64 FX-72 Performance Spectrum

A6-7480

2 / 2

1,793

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Athlon 64 FX-72

2 / 2

1,794

+0.1%

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.

A6-7480 vs Athlon 64 FX-72 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.

A6-7480 vs Athlon 64 FX-72: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-7480

2018

Why buy it

✅Draws 45W instead of 125W, a 80W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R5 Graphics, while Athlon 64 FX-72 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Athlon 64 FX-72.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,793 vs 1,794).

Athlon 64 FX-72

2006

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $799 MSRP, while A6-7480 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌177.8% higher power demand at 125W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-7480 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-7480.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-7480 better than Athlon 64 FX-72?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A6-7480 is ahead with a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 FX-72 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 FX-72 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A6-7480 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A6-7480 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 FX-72 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2006 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (2.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

A6-7480 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A6-7480 vs Athlon 64 FX-72 Technical Specifications

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

A6-7480

The A6-7480 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Carrizo (2015−2018) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FM2+. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 1,793 points. Launch price was $70.

Athlon 64 FX-72

The Athlon 64 FX-72 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Windsor (2006−2007) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.8 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: 1,794 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-7480 and Athlon 64 FX-72 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A6-7480 versus 2.8 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-72 — a 30.3% clock advantage for the A6-7480. The A6-7480 uses the Carrizo (2015−2018) architecture (28 nm), while the Athlon 64 FX-72 uses Windsor (2006−2007) (90 nm). In PassMark, the A6-7480 scores 1,793 against the Athlon 64 FX-72's 1,794 — a 0.1% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-72.

Feature	A6-7480	Athlon 64 FX-72
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+36%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	—
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)	1 MB
Process	28 nm-69%	90 nm
Architecture	Carrizo (2015−2018)	Windsor (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,793	1,794

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-7480 uses the FM2+ socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Athlon 64 FX-72 uses F (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 2133 on the A6-7480 versus DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 FX-72 — the A6-7480 supports 166.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A6-7480 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A6-7480) vs 0 (Athlon 64 FX-72) — the A6-7480 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FM2+ (A6-7480) and AMD F (1207) (Athlon 64 FX-72).

Feature	A6-7480	Athlon 64 FX-72
Socket	FM2+	F
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	2133+167%	DDR2-800
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+100%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (A6-7480) / not specified (Athlon 64 FX-72). The A6-7480 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R5 Graphics), while the Athlon 64 FX-72 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: A6-7480 rivals Pentium G4400.