Athlon 64 4000+ vs Athlon 64 FX-55

AMD

Athlon 64 4000+

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2001
Similar parts
······
VS
AMD

Athlon 64 FX-55

1 Cores1 Thrd104 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2004
Similar parts
······

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Athlon 64 FX-55 Performance Spectrum

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.

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Athlon 64 FX-55 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.

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Athlon 64 FX-55: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Athlon 64 4000+

2001

Why buy it

  • Costs $345 less on MSRP ($482 MSRP vs $827 MSRP).
  • Delivers 67.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 1.4 vs 0.8 PassMark/$ ($482 MSRP vs $827 MSRP).
  • Draws 89W instead of 104W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • Lower PassMark (675 vs 690).

Athlon 64 FX-55

2004

Why buy it

  • +2.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

  • Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.8 vs 1.4 PassMark/$ ($827 MSRP vs $482 MSRP).
  • 16.9% higher power demand at 104W vs 89W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 64 FX-55 better than Athlon 64 4000+?
Yes. Athlon 64 FX-55 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 2.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.
Which one is better for gaming?
For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 FX-55 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Athlon 64 FX-55 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Athlon 64 FX-55 comes in 71.6% more expensive on MSRP at $827 MSRP versus $482 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 4000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 67.8% better value on paper (1.4 vs 0.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 939.
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Athlon 64 FX-55 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2004 vs 2001) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Athlon 64 FX-55 Technical Specifications

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

AMD

Athlon 64 4000+

The Athlon 64 4000+ 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: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $160.

AMD

Athlon 64 FX-55

The Athlon 64 FX-55 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2004 (21 years ago). It is based on the Clawhammer (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 104 Watt. Memory support: DDR1 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 690 points. Launch price was $180.

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 4000+ and Athlon 64 FX-55 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 FX-55 — identical boost frequencies. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Athlon 64 FX-55 uses Clawhammer (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Athlon 64 FX-55's 690 — a 2.2% lead for the Athlon 64 FX-55. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

FeatureAthlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 FX-55
Cores / Threads
1 / 1
1 / 1
Boost Clock
2.6 GHz
2.6 GHz
Base Clock
2.6 GHz
L3 Cache
0 kB
0 kB
L2 Cache
512K+51100%
1 MB
Process
130 nm
130 nm
Architecture
San Diego (2001−2005)
Clawhammer (2001−2005)
PassMark
675
690+2%
🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the 939 socket with PCIe 1.1. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 FX-55 — the Athlon 64 4000+ supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Athlon 64 4000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+) and nForce3,nForce4,Xpress 200 (Athlon 64 FX-55).

FeatureAthlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 FX-55
Socket
939
939
PCIe Generation
PCIe 1.1
PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed
DDR2-800+100%
DDR1-400
Max RAM Capacity
16 GB+300%
4 GB
RAM Channels
2
2
ECC Support
No
No
PCIe Lanes
0
0
💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Athlon 64 4000+ was priced at $482, while the Athlon 64 FX-55 came in at $827. On launch pricing ($482 vs $827), Athlon 64 4000+ was $345 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 4000+ delivers 1.4 pts/$ vs 0.8 pts/$ for the Athlon 64 FX-55 — making the Athlon 64 4000+ the 50.7% better value option.

FeatureAthlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 FX-55
MSRP
$482-42%
$827
Performance per Dollar
1.4+75%
0.8
Release Date
2001
2004

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.