Athlon 64 4000+ vs Atom D2550

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Atom D2550 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 4000+

1 / 1

675

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom D2550

2 / 4

715

+5.9%

Mobile Pentium 4 2.66

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 Atom D2550 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 Atom D2550: 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

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom D2550 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (675 vs 715).
❌Launch MSRP is still $482 MSRP, while Atom D2550 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌790% higher power demand at 89W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom D2550 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Atom D2550

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 10W instead of 89W, a 79W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 3650, while Athlon 64 4000+ needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Atom D2550 better than Athlon 64 4000+?

Yes. Atom D2550 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.9% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom D2550 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom D2550 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom D2550 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom D2550 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $482 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 4000+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2001 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (1.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Atom D2550 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2001) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 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 Atom D2550 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Atom D2550

The Atom D2550 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.87 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 715 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Athlon 64 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Atom D2550 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Atom D2550 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 1.87 GHz on the Atom D2550 — a 32.7% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Atom D2550 uses Cedarview (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Atom D2550's 715 — a 5.8% lead for the Atom D2550. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	Atom D2550
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	2 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+39%	1.87 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K	512K (per core)
Process	130 nm	32 nm-75%
Architecture	San Diego (2001−2005)	Cedarview (2011−2012)
PassMark	675	715+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Atom D2550 uses FCBGA559 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus DDR3-1066 on the Atom D2550 — the Atom D2550 supports 33.3% 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. Memory channels: 2 (Athlon 64 4000+) vs 1 (Atom D2550). PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon 64 4000+) vs 4 (Atom D2550) — the Atom D2550 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+) and Intel FCBGA559 (Atom D2550).

Feature	Athlon 64 4000+	Atom D2550
Socket	939	FCBGA559
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3-1066+33%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4