Athlon 64 3700+ vs Athlon 64 FX-53
Athlon 64 3700+
Athlon 64 FX-53
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon 64 3700+ is positioned at rank 1099 and the Athlon 64 FX-53 is on rank 1135, so the Athlon 64 3700+ offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 3700+
Performance Per Dollar Athlon 64 FX-53
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon 64 3700+ | Athlon 64 FX-53 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | Balanced gaming performance | Balanced gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (San Diego (2001−2005) / 130 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Clawhammer (2001−2005) / 130 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon 64 3700+ | Athlon 64 FX-53 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+38%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($20) | ✅ More affordable ($15) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon 64 3700+ and Athlon 64 FX-53
Athlon 64 3700+
The Athlon 64 3700+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 622 points. Launch price was $69.
Athlon 64 FX-53
The Athlon 64 FX-53 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Junho 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 645 points. Launch price was $30.
Processing Power
Both the Athlon 64 3700+ and Athlon 64 FX-53 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3700+ versus 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-53 — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 3700+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Athlon 64 FX-53 uses Clawhammer (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3700+ scores 622 against the Athlon 64 FX-53's 645 — a 3.6% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-53. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Athlon 64 FX-53 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Process | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Architecture | San Diego (2001−2005) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| PassMark | 622 | 645+4% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 350 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 350 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the 939 socket with PCIe 1.1. Both support up to DDR-400 memory speed. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD 939 (Athlon 64 3700+) and nForce3,nForce4,K8T800 (Athlon 64 FX-53).
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Athlon 64 FX-53 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | 939 | 939 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR-400 | DDR-400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 3700+) / None (Athlon 64 FX-53). Primary use case: Athlon 64 FX-53 targets Legacy Desktop.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Athlon 64 FX-53 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | Yes |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | None |
| Target Use | — | Legacy Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Athlon 64 3700+ launched at $272 MSRP, while the Athlon 64 FX-53 debuted at $799. At current prices ($20 vs $15), the Athlon 64 FX-53 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 3700+ delivers 31.1 pts/$ vs 43.0 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 FX-53 — making the Athlon 64 FX-53 the 32.1% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon 64 3700+ | Athlon 64 FX-53 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $272-66% | $799 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $15-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 31.1 | 43.0+38% |
| Release Date | 2001 | 2004 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon 64 3700+ and Athlon 64 FX-53
